In Scientia Veritas FC

[He's a Mentalist]

FC for Scientists and those wanting to learn more about Science



I have studied Biology most of my career as a student and now I am a Biochemistry major. I know the basics of physics, astronomy, and some robotics. The highest math I have taken is College calculus 1.


This FC does trample along the lines of logistics as well and critical thinking. Topics of a philosophical nature can be discussed here as well.



Owners: He's a Mentalist & TW501

Members List:



Yadomaru
DarkBunny
Jushiro Ukitake
Stig
Szarlej
novae
metalsoup111

[He's a Mentalist]

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6522/atom.jpg



An atom is the most basic and fundamental particle of life and the Universe itself. Elements such as silicon, hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur to name a few, are composed of atoms. The organ systems in your body are also composed of those same basic particles called, atoms. An atom itself has a negative, positive, or a neutral charge to it. An atom consists of electrically neutral and positive protons that surround its dense nucleus. If both the protons and electrons are equal then the atom will remain in a neutral state. Otherwise, the atom is negatively charged via the number of electrons are more than protons and vice-versa for protons. The neutrons determine the isotope of the element and the numbers of protons determine the chemical element of an atom. The elements I listed in the aforementioned are determined by the type of atom, which is determined by the number of protons and electrons in the atom. The atoms structure is small, and electrons surround the outermost regions of the atom, while the protons and neutrons are at the centre of an atom. The atoms hold both the protons and electrons in place via electromagnetic force.


Learn more here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

[TW501]

I wish to join and co-own if possible. (this FC was a terrific idea!)

[Yadomaru]

In scientia veritas indeed. Joinage please?

Okay, who here has read either A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking or the somewhat more recent revision, A Briefer History of Time? I am reading the latter currently, and find it a fascinating book.


In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time. The narrower the probability distribution for one, the wider it is for the other.

In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum is the wavelength. The position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined. The uncertainty principle sets a lower limit to how small the momentum disturbance in an accurate position experiment can be, and vice versa for momentum experiments.

A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root-mean-square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the X-distribution) times the RMS deviation of the momentum from its mean (the standard deviation of P) can never be smaller than a fixed fraction of Planck's constant.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[He's a Mentalist]

I really don't have much of a background in quantum physics, but I do have a question... I was wondering whether quantum mechanics contradicts the theory of gravity?

TW501, yes you are now co-owner and Yadomaru you are welcomed to join! Good to have you both in the FC!

[DarkBunny]

joinage:)i don't have much of a scientific background but i'm willing to discuss it and learn more about science since i did alright with it in high school

[He's a Mentalist]

Accepted... I thought we can start our discussion off with the newest threat to society which is labeled, "swine (pig) flu." It was, or has been present for a while now and it has caused a major outcry in America. I think the threat level has just been raised to level 5? Here is newscientist discussing the matter on Swine flu. . .

THE swine flu virus has been a serious pandemic threat for years, New Scientist can reveal - but research into its potential has been neglected compared with other kinds of flu.

As New Scientist went to press, cases were being reported far from the original outbreak in Mexico. The clusters of milder infections in the US suggest the virus is spreading readily among people. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says this strain is so different from existing human flu viruses that most people have no immunity to it. There are no existing vaccines.

All this means the virus could go pandemic. Or it might not: if the virus spreads less readily than is feared, it might not be able to maintain itself in the human population and could fizzle out (see "What makes flu go global?").

We could have seen this coming, though. This type of virus emerged in the US in 1998 and has since become endemic on hog farms across North America. Equipped with a suite of pig, bird and human genes, it was also evolving rapidly.

Flu infects many animals, including waterfowl, pigs and humans. Birds and people rarely catch flu viruses adapted to another host, but they can pass flu to pigs, which also have their own strains.If a pig catches two kinds of flu at once it can act as a mixing vessel, and hybrids can emerge with genes from both viruses.

Read the rest here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227063.800-scientists-have-warned-about-swine-flu-for-last-decade.html


I'll try and update this thread on the latest news regarding it as much as possible, but you can easily bookmark newscientist.com and read everything they have there so far which is sufficient enough.

But, in the space news, experts want the US to share data on satellite information. Do you agree with this or not? Before you give your opinion, read the article...

The US government's reluctance thus far to release precise data about the satellites it is tracking is hampering efforts to prevent collisions in space, a satellite industry executive told a congressional committee on Tuesday.

The US tracks and predicts the orbits of the world's satellites and thousands of bits of space junk as small as 10 centimetres across, using radar and telescopes on the ground. But it closely guards its most precise data, and routinely releases only lower-precision data to satellite companies and other countries.

That makes it difficult for satellite operators to predict a collision with another satellite or piece of space junk, said Richard DalBello of satellite operator Intelsat General in testimony to a congressional hearing on Tuesday about space debris and safety.

To help avoid accidents like the one in February in which a Russian communications satellite collided with an American one, some commercial operators are pooling information on the positions and orbits of their satellites, based on their own tracking data.

Source: newscientist


I am still on the fence about this. It does have pros and cons to it, but I have not picked a side yet.

[TW501]

I can see the logic behind it, but it doesn't seem to be such a good idea.

[He's a Mentalist]

Because of potential threats? That's what I was thinking. They want the govt. to release the data on the satellite orbit, which I think would be a bad idea because of potential terrorist threats and what they could do with such information. It could possibly do more harm than good, but on the flip-side those same experts could suggest probable methods to help them with the orbit of the satellite. Topsy-turvy.

[DarkBunny]

what are the chances of this virus turning into a Pandemic?

[Yadomaru]

I was wondering whether quantum mechanics contradicts the theory of gravity?
From my very limited understanding of Hawking's work, the problem with quantum theory and the theory of gravity is not that one contradicts the other per se. It's that the two don't fit together.
The way I understood it, and I could be wrong, the issue is that the Newtonian theory does not take into account the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which in a nutshell states that you cannot accurately know both the exact position and the exact velocity of a particle - the more specific your measurement of one, the greater the margin of error in the other. And that thus far scientists have been unable to clearly formulate a theory of gravity that DOES fit in with quantum theory.

Incidentally, Einstein himself always objected strongly to the concept of unpredictability inherent in quantum theory, hence his famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe."
This in spite of having won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of quantum theory.

I'm no particle physicist, so I can't tell you much more than that. Hawking's revised A Briefer History of Time can probably tell you much more far better than I could.

[DarkBunny]

From my very limited understanding of Hawking's work, the problem with quantum theory and the theory of gravity is not that one contradicts the other per se. It's that the two don't fit together.
The way I understood it, and I could be wrong, the issue is that the Newtonian theory does not take into account the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which in a nutshell states that you cannot accurately know both the exact position and the exact velocity of a particle - the more specific your measurement of one, the greater the margin of error in the other. And that thus far scientists have been unable to clearly formulate a theory of gravity that DOES fit in with quantum theory.

Incidentally, Einstein himself always objected strongly to the concept of unpredictability inherent in quantum theory, hence his famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe."
This in spite of having won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of quantum theory.

I'm no particle physicist, so I can't tell you much more than that. Hawking's revised A Briefer History of Time can probably tell you much more far better than I could.
sounds interesting,i haven't read this book yet,can you elaborate more

[Yadomaru]

Yikes.
Well, A Briefer History of Time is a revised version of his famous book A Brief History of Time - updated with more recent research, rewritten to be easier to understand, and illustrated. It basically traces the history of modern scientific theory and the attempts to explain and define the laws of nature, space, and time - all the way to the most recent quantum mechanics and string theory stuff.
It's a fascinating book and an absolute must-read for anyone scientifically-inclined.

[DarkBunny]

sounds pretty good^___________________^i will check it out some time got any other good recommendations?

[Rosh]

May I join this fanclub..?

[He's a Mentalist]

Yes.

what are the chances of this virus turning into a Pandemic?


My estimated guess would be once more people start dying from this disease who have had the proper care...

[Rosh]

Thanks for letting me join

[Caledfwlch]

Umm, it basically turns out there's no such thing as gravity. There's an attraction between objects based on their mass, which can be popularly understood as gravity. That's the "normal" one, but even it doesn't work the way we think it does, and the way it does work is closer to a mutual attraction between any objects than an attractive force by the larger one.

In reality, when you factor in the way this attraction changes on large scales, it is more like an electromagnetic warping field. This actually vindicates most of what Einstein discovered that made him seem so wrong. Even light is affected by what we term gravity, and its effects on a massive scale prove Einstein's theories to have been more right than he could ever know--and even than we could until fairly recently.

Of course, on the very small scale, so-called gravity is basically ineffectual, leading to molecular bonding forces--and, again, electromagnetic forces, in this case, both attractive and repulsive. This is true basically on atomic and lower scales. These forces are poorly understood in some respects--as mentioned by the original poster to reply to this question.

Quantum physics are their own beast, due to the entirely different laws governing such things as electrons. Quantum physics do not technically disprove Einstein so much as they exist outside of and beyond any of his theories/awareness, but it has the same appearance. Still not entirely measurable/determinable, and argued amongst quantum physicists, quantum physics experiments tends to ignore Einstein's premises, while the astrophysicists more often set themselves to "proving"/"disproving".

The issue is that subatomic observation is imperfect, letting us know for certain only the direction of an electron's travel or its current position, but knowing the one makes it impossible to know the other.

Of course, as addressed in the Schroedinger's Cat thought-experiment, electrons are so unstable that they are actually in two places at one time and only resolve into one upon observation. More recent studies, such as the light waves/particles experiments, look into whether or not observation changes the outcome of experiments on quantum levels, with strong suggestions that it does.

And, that's about all you want from someone off of the top of their head on a subject this complex.

If you want to fact-check, the easy way is to start from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

or Google something along the lines of "Einstein was right", or "quantum physics Einstein".

[Yadomaru]

The issue is that subatomic observation is imperfect, letting us know for certain only the direction of an electron's travel or its current position, but knowing the one makes it impossible to know the other.
Otherwise known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, first formulated in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg.

[stig]

can I join ?

[Caledfwlch]

@ Yadomaru:

Eeep, sorry. :embarass: You certainly did say that earlier (and more succinctly), as I knew and meant to reference--Mea Culpa on not saying as much. :slow:

In my first draft, I referred to your previous bringing up and basically defining the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle--but I must have cut it with the two-slit experiments that proved light is both a wave (self-evident movement shape) and a particle (straight line) at the same time.

Those experiments were the first thing I thought of after reading through all the previous posts and seeing you had already provided the title of the HUP, thus making any interested person's search for info easier long before i summarized off the top of my head.

But, obviously, the light duality (though related) is another matter entirely, as it deals with more than just electrons and, instead, describes a similar effect on a larger scale. Plus, I wasn't sure whether I had the details right (still true). :unsure: Hence, I cut it, and must have cut the credit I intended to give to you.

But its worth it, isn't it, to get to bring up the explanation for light's odd behaviors around sufficiently massive stuff? :sarcasm:

Okay, no, but it allows me to segue into the way the same studies showed entirely different results when the experiment was observed (sending the light through a recording medium) versus when it wasn't recorded. That difference remained even when the recordings were immediately destroyed rather than saved.

[Szarlej]

*joinage*

[stig]

From my very limited understanding of Hawking's work, the problem with quantum theory and the theory of gravity is not that one contradicts the other per se. It's that the two don't fit together.
The way I understood it, and I could be wrong, the issue is that the Newtonian theory does not take into account the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which in a nutshell states that you cannot accurately know both the exact position and the exact velocity of a particle - the more specific your measurement of one, the greater the margin of error in the other. And that thus far scientists have been unable to clearly formulate a theory of gravity that DOES fit in with quantum theory.

Your right..it doesnt... but what you're also forgetting is

(1) the fact that the theory of gravity becomes negligible for microscopic objects..eg. - an electron.

Now another thing I'd like to tell you is that the newtonian theory of gravity doesn't take into account the heisenberg uncertainity principle, your right there...but what i would also like you to know is that although the Heisenberg uncertainity principle holds good for all objects, it is of significance only for microscopic objects,
and the effect of the principle is negligible for macroscopic objects.

The reason for this is quite obvious....consider the following examples :

Note: the simplest mathematical expression for Heisenberg’s principle is-

dx * dv = h / 4 * pi * m

where dx = uncertainity in position of the particle
dv = uncertainity in velocity " " "
h = planck's constant
pi = 22 / 7
m = mass of particle


(a) for a microscopic object -
say an electron

mass of an electron = 9.2 * 10 raised to (−31) kg

so according to the principle –

dx*dv = 10 raised to (-4) meter squared / second

it, therefore means that if one tries to find the exact location of an electron , say to an uncertainity of 10 raised to (-8) meters then uncertainity in velocity would be =

{10 raised to (-4) meter squared / second} / {10raised to (-8) meters}

= 10 raised (+4) meters / second

which is so large that the classical picture of electrons spinning in orbits cannot hold good.

This example proves that it is impossible to determine simultaneously the exact position and velocity of an electron (microscopic object).


(b) for a macroscopic object –

[ I’ll keep this one short considering how tiring it must have been for y'all to read example (a) lol]

Consider a large (macroscopic) object …say a rat,
Lets take the rat in a dark room and focus a flash light on it…..here the energy of the photon from the light is insufficient to change the position and velocities of bigger bodies when it collides with them…, so in this case the light from the torch falling on the rat running in dark room neither changes the velocity of the rat nor its direction, i.e., position.

This example proves that the effect of the principle is negligible for macroscopic objects.


Now the result we’ve deduced from example (b) coupled with the piece of info from point (1) tells us that the newtonian theory of gravitation doesn’t contradict quantum theory as :-

a) Newtonian theory of gravitation (classical theory) is negligible for microscopic objects.

b) Heisenberg’s principle (quantum theory) is negligible for macroscopic objects .


I hope this answers your question

I was wondering whether quantum mechanics contradicts the theory of gravity?



^^ sorry about the long post, I know I’m not a member yet, but I couldn’t help it.

[He's a Mentalist]

Otherwise known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, first formulated in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is a tantalizing little principal in that it makes you question just about everything about the principles of everything in our universe... But, I will let you guys continue your discussion.

Side-note: Sorry for my lateness in getting back to this FC. I will add all who requested to join! When I finish this exam week, which is only 2 more exams, I will be on the computer for sometime until July... in that time-frame I am hoping to create more division banners, get interesting more bleachexile friendly topics, and more! Hehe! :amused:

Great discussion so far and stig, thank you for expanding Cals. explanation. I have a much clearer understanding now. :)

[Yadomaru]

Not necessarily - all it says is that there are limits to what you can know/measure about microscopic particle behavior: In layman's terms, you can't accurately measure both where it is and how fast it's going.

@stig: DUDE, you rock. Thanks for that explanation. *reps*
You should join.

[He's a Mentalist]

http://animal-world.com/encyclo/reptiles/centipedes/images/VietnameseCentipedeWHSp_AP7I.jpg

Centipedes (from Latin prefix centi-, "hundred", and Latin pes,pedis, "foot") are arthropods belonging to the class Chilopoda and the Subphylum Myriapoda. They are elongated metameric animals with one pair of legs per body segment. A key trait uniting this group is a pair of venom claws or forcipules formed from a modified first appendage. This also means that centipedes are an exclusively predatory taxon, which is uncommon.[citation needed]

Centipedes normally have a drab coloration combining shades of brown and red. Cavernicolous and subterranean species may lack pigmentation and many tropical Scolopendromorphs have bright aposematic colors. Size can range from a few millimeters in the smaller Lithobiomorphs and Geophilomorphs to about 30 cm in the largest Scolopendromorphs. Centipedes can be found in a wide variety of environments.

Worldwide there are estimated to be 8,000 species.[1] Currently there are about 3,000 described species. Geographically, centipedes have a wide range, which reaches beyond the Arctic Circle.[2] Centipedes are found in an array of terrestrial habitats from tropical rainforests to deserts. Within these habitats centipedes require a moist micro-habitat because they lack the waxy cuticle of insects and arachnids, and so lose water rapidly through the skin.[3] Accordingly, they are found in soil and leaf litter, under stones and deadwood, and inside logs. In addition, centipedes are one of the largest terrestrial invertebrate predators and often they contribute a significant proportion to invertebrate predatory biomass in terrestrial ecosystems.

source: wikipedia


A video of a centipede eating a mouse. It might be disturbing so watch at your own discretion.

RoXfYvoUsxg

[Primera-Espada]

Interesting, I would've never known that giant centipedes eat the innards of their prey. That is something for the strong stomach to watch.

[He's a Mentalist]

Yeah, it ate the innards pretty quickly. I watched this video and a video on centipedes eating a tarantula. They are an interesting breed of arthropods. Centipedes do not discriminate against meals, so as long as they are larger than the food they desire, if the aren't they won't bother to attack it unless it is for defending purposes. Centipedes also sometimes carry poisons, which are harmful to humans. There are many different varieties though and centipedes do, in fact, keep out cock roaches which is one beneficial thing.

[Primera-Espada]

Yeah a plus on their behalf, but a minus for humans. The suckest part would to find this little guy in your morning footies after a full nights rest on a fantastic Saturday morning. Your day would be ruin, the cockroaches day is ruined and whom ever has to tend to you day was ruined. But none the lees an interesting creature.

[He's a Mentalist]

Oh... the house centipede. It's name is too long and, I forgot how to spell it. But those little critters are quick. They mostly eat every other common house-hold insect.

http://www.livt.net/Clt/Ani/Art/Cpd/cpd006.jpg

They mostly rest inside basements in my house. I hardly see them on the upper-floors. Although I am interested, I tend to start itching and get a feeling of something crawling on me when I look at images of arthropods.

Here is an interesting article

The Invisibility Cloak

An invisibility cloak for visible light could be made within six months, say scientists from Duke University, who, in a new paper published today in Science, explain how to hide objects from a dramatically extended range of wave lengths.

"I think that within six months it's certainly viable [a cloak for visible light]," said David Smith, a professor at Duke University and author of the Science paper.

"A large number of folks are looking at it, and I think it's a matter of coupling the right material to the right device."

A metamaterial is a material with unique properties that derive from its physical structure, not its chemical make up. To manipulate light, the microscopic surface of a material must be much smaller than that of the wave length of light being used.

Source: discovery.com

Berkley Researching Invisibility

Never mind Harry Potter, researchers at Berkeley have made an invisibility cloak of their own. A team led by Xiang Zhang, a principal investigator with Berkeley Lab’s Materials Sciences Division and director of UC Berkeley’s Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center, has created a “carpet cloak” from nanostructured silicon that conceals the presence of objects placed under it from optical detection. While the carpet itself can still be seen, the bulge of the object underneath it disappears from view. Shining a beam of light on the bulge shows a reflection identical to that of a beam reflected from a flat surface, meaning the object itself has essentially been rendered invisible.
Light striking an object covered with the carpet cloak acts as if there were no object being concealed on the flat surface. In essence, the object has become invisible.
Light striking an object covered with the carpet cloak acts as if there were no object being concealed on the flat surface. In essence, the object has become invisible.

Zhang and his team have published a paper on this research in the journal Nature Materials entitled: An Optical Cloak Made of Dielectrics. Co-authoring the paper with Zhang were Jason Valentine, Jensen Li, Thomas Zentgraf and Guy Bartal, all members of Zhang’s research group

While metallic metamaterials have been successfully used to achieve invisibility cloaking at microwave frequencies, until now cloaking at optical frequencies, a key step towards achieving actual invisibility, has not been successful because the metal elements absorb too much light.

[novae]

Joinage please. Currently I am a third year Geology towards Paleontology major. When I am all said and done with higher learning, I hope to have a doctorate degree in forensic anthropology.

[He's a Mentalist]

Welcome and accepted. Whoa! Nice major.

[novae]

Thanks. I will try to bring what I can to the discussions. I will mostly try to quote articles off of Google Scholar instead of wikipedia if I can help it.

[He's a Mentalist]

That is cool, novae, I've always wondered about forensic antro... what type of sector would you go into upon completion of your degree?

[metalsoup111]

Hey, now! Joinage. I'm a music education major and I don't have any formal training in any field of science, but I've always enjoyed personally trying to answer my own 'Why' questions about that world around me...

[novae]

That is cool, novae, I've always wondered about forensic antro... what type of sector would you go into upon completion of your degree?

Well I could join the FBI after I get my degree or help the military as a civilian by helping to identify soldiers MIA during the wars.


And unofficial welcome metalsoup111!!

[He's a Mentalist]

Reference Guide:

STAT3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAT3)

Glioblastoma Multiforme (http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=45699)

Metasasis (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4363)

Angiogenesis (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6597)

Apoptosis (http://www.apoptosisinfo.com/)

Cell Immortalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality) (I read it and it is a nice reference to understand cancer)

BOSTON (August 10, 2009) In a study published online in advance of print in Stem Cells, Tufts researchers report that the STAT3 gene regulates cancer stem cells in brain cancer. Cancer stem cells have many characteristics of stem cells and are thought to be the cells that drive tumor formation. The researchers report that STAT3 could become a target for cancer therapy, specifically in Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a type of malignant and aggressive brain tumor.

Patients with Glioblastoma multiforme typically survive 12 to 14 months with treatment. Treatment options include radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery.

"When STAT3 is inhibited, cancer stem cells in glioblastomas lose their stem-cell characteristics permanently, suggesting that STAT3 regulates growth and self-renewal of stem cells within glioblastomas. Strikingly, a single, acute treatment with STAT3 inhibitors was effective, implying that a STAT3 inhibitor could stop tumor formation," said senior author Brent Cochran, PhD, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and a member of the cellular & molecular physiology program faculty at the Sackler School of Biomedical Sciences at Tufts.

"STAT3 has been shown to be activated in a number of human tumors. This study is one of the first to show, however, that STAT3 regulates cancer stem cells. It is one of the few genes linked to the propagation of cancer stem cells, and it appears to regulate processes involved in the six hallmarks of cancer: growth, metastasis, angiogenesis, evasion of apoptosis, tissue invasion, and cell immortalization," he continued.

The researchers used cancer stem cells isolated from surgically removed samples of glioblastoma tumors. Cell cultures were treated with two chemically distinct small-molecule inhibitors (STA-21 and S3I-201) of STAT3. After several days of treatment, cell growth in the STAT3-inhibited cultures was minimal compared to growth in the control cultures. Moreover, in the STAT-inhibited cultures, proteins that help maintain stem-cell characteristics were apparently turned off. This finding leads the researchers to believe that STAT3 has a distinct role to play in cancer stem cells, which may make it an especially good target for cancer therapy.

"Current cancer therapies that prolong life do not specifically target cancer stem cells, and these cells are often resistant to traditional radiation and chemotherapies. STAT3 appears to govern the propagation of cancer stem cells in Glioblastoma multiforme. Targeted inhibition of STAT3 in GBM cancer stem cells gives us a new approach to treating this devastating brain cancer," said Julian Wu, MD, associate chairman of neurosurgery and chief of the division of neurosurgical oncology at Tufts Medical Center. He is also a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine. Dr. Wu is known for his expertise in gene therapy for brain tumors and the molecular genetics of primary and metastatic brain tumors.

"We are encouraged by the potential of STAT3 in our study," said Cochran. "Research has already demonstrated that STAT3 and cancer go hand in hand, but, until this study, we did not know that STAT3 regulates cancer stem cells, which are extremely resistant to conventional therapy. Given these findings, I hope that our future research investigating the mechanisms involved in inhibiting STAT3 will contribute to more effective and less invasive cancer therapies."

Sources: wikipedia, genenews, medicinenet, cancer.gov, apoptosisinfo...

questions, just ask...

Welcome, metalsoup! a music major? I heard music theory was quite hard...

@novae, I see. I always thought being an investigator was quite cool. I do have a couple of friends who know some people new to the field. Pay-grade is good as well.

EDIT: Oh yeah! metalsoup111, you can post information for those of us who have limited knowledge of music here and wish to expand their knowledge base.