Just to came to /sci/ to say I find it totally fascinating and mysterious that we humans, like many other living things, need heavy metals in our bodies to keep them running, and are basically partially made of metal. I have nothing more to say other than that's kind of fucking awesome and strange.
Threads by latest replies - Page 2573
(5 replies)
(345 replies)
(5 replies)
I mixed this with baking soda and it started foaming. Did the baking soda destroy the acids? Like I'm getting less nutrients now?
(5 replies)
>tfw no cute Jewish science partner to discover nuclear fission with
(5 replies)
>tfw someone says they're a paleontologist
>and they insist they're a scientist
yeah sure, dinosaurs were giant birds, buddy. next thing they're asking you to borrow money for food because they're waiting on their grant money! LMAO
>and they insist they're a scientist
yeah sure, dinosaurs were giant birds, buddy. next thing they're asking you to borrow money for food because they're waiting on their grant money! LMAO
(6 replies)
But is it, really?
I'm pretty sure your browser history can show what a potential threat you to the public, while your calculator history can show you're too stupid to be harmful.
I'm pretty sure your browser history can show what a potential threat you to the public, while your calculator history can show you're too stupid to be harmful.
(14 replies)
Science and atheism are tricks from Satan to bring humanity away from Moral Consciousness and spirituality, into emptiness and disbelief.
(11 replies)
The SSGAC (one of the largest sources of data from genome-wide association surveys) is forbidding researchers from using that data to "to make comparisons across ancestral groups."
Are they right to do so as a matter of science, or is this purely a political move which PREVENTS science from being done? As they explain things:
https://www.thessgac.org/faqs
>I agree to conduct research that strictly adheres to the principles articulated by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) position statement: “ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy.” (See also International Genetic Epidemiological Society Statement on Racism and Genetic Epidemiology.) In particular, I will not use these data to make comparisons across ancestral groups. Such comparisons could animate biological conceptualizations of racial superiority. In addition, such comparisons are usually scientifically confounded due to the effects of linkage disequilibrium, gene-environment correlation, gene-environment interactions, and other methodological problems.
>I have read the principles articulated by the ASHG with respect to “Advancing Diverse Participation in Research with Special Consideration for Vulnerable Populations”. I agree to adhere to the principles articulated in the final two sections of this statement, “In the Conduct of Research with Vulnerable Populations, Researchers Must Address Concerns that Participation May Lead to Group Harm” and “The Benefits of Research Participation Are Profound, Yet the Potential Danger that Unethical Application of Genetics Might Stigmatize, Discriminate against, or Persecute Vulnerable Populations Persists.”
Is that really 'science'? That seems more like blatant politics to me. Am I wrong?
Are they right to do so as a matter of science, or is this purely a political move which PREVENTS science from being done? As they explain things:
https://www.thessgac.org/faqs
>I agree to conduct research that strictly adheres to the principles articulated by the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) position statement: “ASHG Denounces Attempts to Link Genetics and Racial Supremacy.” (See also International Genetic Epidemiological Society Statement on Racism and Genetic Epidemiology.) In particular, I will not use these data to make comparisons across ancestral groups. Such comparisons could animate biological conceptualizations of racial superiority. In addition, such comparisons are usually scientifically confounded due to the effects of linkage disequilibrium, gene-environment correlation, gene-environment interactions, and other methodological problems.
>I have read the principles articulated by the ASHG with respect to “Advancing Diverse Participation in Research with Special Consideration for Vulnerable Populations”. I agree to adhere to the principles articulated in the final two sections of this statement, “In the Conduct of Research with Vulnerable Populations, Researchers Must Address Concerns that Participation May Lead to Group Harm” and “The Benefits of Research Participation Are Profound, Yet the Potential Danger that Unethical Application of Genetics Might Stigmatize, Discriminate against, or Persecute Vulnerable Populations Persists.”
Is that really 'science'? That seems more like blatant politics to me. Am I wrong?
(7 replies)
Scientifically speaking, why didn't he just take 20 minutes to write a day trading program so he didn't have to be a whore for research grant money?
(12 replies)
I wanna be immortal. Which one is more dangerous, physics or chemistry?
