RabbitAngstrom

6 ms·

1.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Following the source -- excellent idea. I bet most of the rest of his class has a similar searchability...
2.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Perhaps the "beer" subtext is just more about being exclusive (beer nerds welcome here) versus inclusive. What if instead the same event was going out to a bar, where you can order a whiskey, cosmopolitan or soda? I think it fits
3.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I went to an Ivy League School (Penn) on just straight-As and 700s (!) on the SATs. I was not a "legacy" student of any kind. I knew many such people there, and only about 10% of my colleagues ad
4.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
IVF doesn't actually change the genetic makeup of the sperm or egg in question. To do so would create a genetically altered human.
5.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Once you are born with synthetic DNA, is it not "existing in nature?" An interesting point, but cloning is not very popular among bioethicists.
6.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Not a patent lawyer, but I would think that 1)the ruling focuses in on retrieval of how DNA is naturally stored, which is more or less the same in all organisms 2)you can replicate just about any gene, either chemically or via PCR. The form
7.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
A co-worker in my lab pointed out that Myriad's stock is actually rising [1] after the decision.The best guess is that Myriad's competitive advantage is shifting to the enormous amounts of BRCA sequences they have obtained -- thi
8.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Interesting point; in the scientific community some are quite honored by being chosen as a peer reviewer. It's like a rite of passage. The only difference I can see is that the YouTube/Facebook reviewer title is a lot easier to come by. I
9.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
Also, I have seen wholly unreviewed material in Nature Precedings, which I can only assume is due to the pressure of being scooped. As you might imagine, non-peer-reviewed scientific literature is the antithesis of the research culture, an
10.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
You got it: when you follow the money, it's clear why this article is happening. Journals have long used free labor for peer review and editing, and rake in the money with subscriptions (paywalls) and advertising. The most impacted journals
11.
by RabbitAngstrom 13y ago
This is my first reaction too, but then I must remember that it's free to publish in Nature (and Science, et. al.) because of their massive readership. I don't think they'll go anywhere for a long time, because people will always want a pre