Valeev is by no means the worst offender

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:

I said "more interestingly" because most efforts stop and
tidy up after something works. IOW, no more work at finding
something that works. But that may not be the case in a
science lab. It certainly is the case in business.
It's infinite regression...every answer raises more questions and
every time something works, it merely becomes a new building
block in making something else work. The remarkable, wahoo-we-
did-it! success in 2001 is 2009's Student Methodology.
Quite a bit different :-). In business, you get paid for
reproducible results and never get time to write up what
didn't work.

Compliments of my lab notebook, I get to write up what
doesn't work as I go. :-)

Our "lab notebooks" were called project notebooks and were
used only as proof we did all the development ourselves if,
and only if, there was ever a lawsuit. What we wrote
during meetings etc. wasn't supposed to be done on scraps
of paper nor IBM cards but a bound notebook.

If you're real lucky (or smart enough to
plan ahead), you sometimes get to figure out why stuff didn't
work.

Sometimes, however, it's simply not worth the effort...why
didn't that culture re-vivify? Dunno and it's not worth the
time to figure it out, simply grab another and try again.

I understand.

Now,
if you get reproducible failures with something that's worked
in the past, you might need to investigate, but most of the
time simply remaking media or stock solutions can "fix"
things...this is especially true if someone unfamiliar (read:
student) with SOP made them up.

How do you pick the very first critter?


I'm talking mostly about hard/software developement
of computer manufacturers; we only sold the stuff that worked
consistently. Time frames for getting the stuff to work
were a lot shorter than yours.

Well, we're in arenas with different goals, hm?

Right.

I presume
you're in a for-profit setting

Was in. but it was profit.

whereas I'm parked in a for-info
one. Different settings are going to result in different time
frames, yours, being more market driven is going to be more
impatient for useable, marketable results. While we don't
have the luxury of lolly-gagging about, we also don't have a
shareholder pointing a metaphorical gun to our heads asking
what the delay in release is.

Nor paying customer :-).

It's not that we've no pressure,
it's just that's it's a different sort...more self inflicted. :-)

Understood. One of the things the computer biz is missing right
now is the fact that we never wrote up what didn't work and why
it didn't work. Some things didn't "work" because the technology
didn't exist. Other things didn't work because it tried to break
the laws of physics or depended on humans to do the "right"
thing. As a result, I'm seeing many wheels getting reinvented
today.

/BAH

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

jmfbahciv wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:
:That's part of the fun....turning noise into quality signal :-).

A pity there are so many netloons working to do the reverse.
Since Ian has decided to become vicious, I'm not going to try with his
posts anymore.

I must have missed that...how do you define "vicious" in
someone who is clearly non compos mentis?

: BTW, why didn't you go after the Marine Bio?
:
:
:No money. Turns out, looking back, I probably would not have
:done anything remarkable in the bio field.

The majority of science is unremarkable...

Oh, I understand that.

tiny facts which,
over time, form building blocks of larger ideas, but the
day to day operation isn't nearly as glamorous as some
people seem to think...

That's the same with developing a computer system.

a fact which I'm reminded of every
time I find myself up to my elbows in dirty glassware or
on the floor peering up into the the bowels of some piece
of non-functioning equipment.

Do you do plumbing in your work?


(Microbio has an additional yuck! factor...it frequently
stinks in the most literal of gag-inducing sense of the
word...Shewanella came by the "putrefaciens" designator
very honestly and some of the Geobacters, when grown
in certain media, smell like blood.

Sounds like farming :-). The words Shewanella and Geobacters
are new to me.

No wonder my daughter
opted for Molecular instead of Micro. :-))


Good for her. Did, or do, you have a lab at home?

/BAH


Deirdre

On Feb 26, 9:13*am, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:58 am, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:33 pm, American wrote:
Sure, SOME CAPITALISM is based on pure greed..
Most.
But please, PLEASE, don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater"
Bush has already done that! He had all lkinds of time to fix all kinds
of things. He sat on his ass.
snip

Bull****. *He did his job.

If by job you mean wreck the economy and start two wars and finish
none?

Oh, ye of instant gratification and 100% cognitive dissonance.
He didn't start the war.

Yeah, he did us a *JOB* alright. You Republicans

I'm not.

Sorry, Bush Apologist, then...


just won't
admit when your own screw up. Apolgizing for Bush makes you look like
a total fool. At least Clinton balance the budget

snort *No, he did not. *It was bells, whistles, mirrors, and
retroactive taxes.

So says the RNC and their supporters. Tell me that the economic
numbers today that say we are broke is all bells, whistles, mirrors as
well.


and didn't wreck the
economy. And the one war he got into he finished

Huh?

Kosovo

and the objectives
were met.

You certainly missed what went on during the 90s.

Prosperity and much cheaper gas, houses you could afford. Yeah, really
bad times.

Sorry, your party is in a shambles because it did it to
itself.

Are your parents better off now than they were in 2001?!

Yes.

Mine aren't. I'm glad that they are rich like Bush. We in the middles
class are NOT as well off now as we were before Bush took over as
president.

Go ask them!
Go ask anyone that is retired and then tell me Bush did his job!

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Compliments of my lab notebook, I get to write up what
doesn't work as I go. :-)

Our "lab notebooks" were called project notebooks and were
used only as proof we did all the development ourselves if,
and only if, there was ever a lawsuit. What we wrote
during meetings etc. wasn't supposed to be done on scraps
of paper nor IBM cards but a bound notebook.

Same here...although I have multiple notebooks and one
of those is specifically for meetings (I don't want doodles
in my actual lab one. :-))

Now,
if you get reproducible failures with something that's worked
in the past, you might need to investigate, but most of the
time simply remaking media or stock solutions can "fix"
things...this is especially true if someone unfamiliar (read:
student) with SOP made them up.

How do you pick the very first critter?

Well, it depends on what sort of hypothesis you're testing...
feel free to hit "N" if this seems too verbose.

Our first critter was Pseudomonas fluorescences and it
was chosen for a couple reasons because we were testing
a couple ideas. The first was: Can one even image a living
microbe in a synchrotron x-ray beam? (Answer: Yes, and
the results were published in Science in 2004.) To that
end we wanted something that was relatively easy to cul-
ture and maintain...and, on a microbial scale, biggish. The
second thing we were tested was whether or not exuded
microbial exopolysaccharides (EPS in Real Life) could be
used to bind contaminant metals. Pf produces a _lot_ of
extra-cellular material...in fact, if you're trying to ID this
critter on a plate, you basically look for the colony which
most closely resembles snot.

The second critter (Shewanella oneidensis MR1) was chosen
because it was robust, facultative (can grow under either
aerobic or anaerobic conditions), versatile (it could use a
lot of different e- acceptors and donors) and, most impor-
tantly, could reduce metals. While it appeared we were
widening the net from Pf, we were actually narrowing it...
to a anaerobic metal reducer. (The fact that it wasn't
strictly anaerobic made it a bit easier to maintain.) We're
just about to wrap up on it and get the last couple papers
and presentations out this year.

We're currently casting about for a new critter and we've
a couple auditioning under the (figurative) microscope...and
we're narrowing the field further...this time we want a strict
anaerobe which can reduce metal...or more specifically, re-
duce U(VI) and it needs to be an in-situ critter which can be
biostimulated (it also needs to be culturable in the lab so we
can abuse it down at the beamline). Which is why my most
recent collaboration has the unlikely working title of "Micro-
bial Community Dynamics...[yadda, yadda]....from an UMTRA
site" ("UMTRA" to save googling stands for "Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action")

Candidly, I didn't expect to be involved in meta-genomics
at this stage of my career.

whereas I'm parked in a for-info
one. Different settings are going to result in different time
frames, yours, being more market driven is going to be more
impatient for useable, marketable results. While we don't
have the luxury of lolly-gagging about, we also don't have a
shareholder pointing a metaphorical gun to our heads asking
what the delay in release is.

Nor paying customer :-).

Nope...although sometimes it seems like they want to
rework us to fit into a corporate model pigeonhole. I don't
know that scientific square pegs can be filed off to fit
into the round holes of an MBA mentality, but they're
always welcome to run the experiment. :-)

It's not that we've no pressure,
it's just that's it's a different sort...more self inflicted. :-)

Understood. One of the things the computer biz is missing right
now is the fact that we never wrote up what didn't work and why
it didn't work. Some things didn't "work" because the technology
didn't exist. Other things didn't work because it tried to break
the laws of physics or depended on humans to do the "right"
thing. As a result, I'm seeing many wheels getting reinvented
today.

laugh We have a radiolimnologist in our group who's been
around ANL forever and has forgotten more about Chemistry
than most people will ever know...and we've discovered it's
always a good idea to get his input on "New" ideas because
more often than not you'll hear "I remember we tried some-
thing like that in 1965..."

There's nothing new under the sun...it's merely the old with
the serial numbers filed off and a new spin. :-)

Deirdre

jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

a fact which I'm reminded of every
time I find myself up to my elbows in dirty glassware or
on the floor peering up into the the bowels of some piece
of non-functioning equipment.

Do you do plumbing in your work?

Heaven forfend, the maintenance folk would murder me
if I tried...I'm allowed to dissect my own stuff, anything
which counts a building intrastruction is their bailiwick.
Which is not to say I don't get my fix of plumbing issues
at home, but my usual response is to tell Himself that
there's water pouring out from under the sink cabinet
and then scoot off to work. :-)

(Microbio has an additional yuck! factor...it frequently
stinks in the most literal of gag-inducing sense of the
word...Shewanella came by the "putrefaciens" designator
very honestly and some of the Geobacters, when grown
in certain media, smell like blood.

Sounds like farming :-). The words Shewanella and Geobacters
are new to me.

Soil critters.

No wonder my daughter
opted for Molecular instead of Micro. :-))

Good for her. Did, or do, you have a lab at home?

No...the capital costs are prohibitive, to say nothing of the
safety concerns. My bugs aren't pathogens, but just saying
"Microbial culture" can frighten some people...they've only
heard about the nasties like Anthrax or MRSA (the antibio-
tic resistant Staph aureus) and frequently don't make the
distinction between my pets and their anti-social relatives.

I do the wet lab bench work on site and the reading, writing
and research from my office at home. I just came off a
spate of lab work and am now in the process of a week of
literature reading...it's the best of both worlds, in truth.

Deirdre

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.... Well then, instead of you whining about it
thank me that I do not repost your Andorklian "untruths".
Be grateful that I shelter you from embarrassment
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahaha...


"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be treated
with respect.

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

Why are you waffling now, Andro?
Are your many "no brainers" no-brainers, or no no-brainers?
How much brains do you need to make up your mind?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the
Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the
risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard
professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

"hanson" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the
Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the
National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the
risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard
professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one
of the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....