Jackson Hewitt Holiday Advance

PCR, the Nobel Laureate and arguments ad verecundiam

If someone asked me what was the technology that defined the development of molecular biology at the end of last century would respond without thinking that was the PCR. PCR is the acronym Chain Reaction to Polymerase (P olimerase C hain R eaction) which is a reaction in vitro DNA polymerization. The mechanism is simple and allows us to obtain millions of copies of a specific DNA fragment. To understand the amplification process encour link English Wikipedia but I present this video which is quite good (post it to the computed volume because the audio is too low):



Currently this technique has been refined and expanded so that not only can amplify and isolate fragments DNA but also can build mutations (and committing a mortal sin in the process), to study gene expression patterns, identify and classify microorganisms, paternity testing and identifying genes that predispose to diseases among other uses. To give you an idea 25 years ago when my tutor was a graduate student isolation of a gene was an undergraduate thesis, today I do that in 2 hrs. With this technique the scope of each work expanded considerably and now I do not think there is a single work of molecular biology that makes use of that technique.
The inventor of this technique was a scientist named Kary Mullis industry working for the company Cetus. The story of how he invented the PCR can read his acceptance speech Nobel Prize, an award by the importance and impact of the technique certainly deserved. But Kary Mullis is also famous for some controversial positions. A look at the wikipedia entry shows he was in favor of astrology and more current descepcionantemente of HIV denialist as causes AIDS. Even Dr. Duesberg, the axis of the denialist movement, constantly boasts that the Nobel laureate who invented the technique used to calculate the viral load favor of its current even prefaced his book. This case is a classic example the main theme of this post that are the arguments ad verecundiam . These are those whose only support is in the importance, respect and fame that exposes or supporting it and are used continuously in the case of Nobel laureates. We all remember the controversy, surprise and disappointment after the unfortunate comments of Dr. Watson. What a genius as he was able to make judgments as reprehensible? How else Mullis genius is capable of denying that HIV causes AIDS? The answer is simple: they are geniuses! scientists are ordinary people who had the vision and clarity on time to discover or invent something transcendent. But that does not guarantee that absolutely everything that emanates from your mouth will leave with the same certainty that their work rewarded. Take the example of Kary Mullis, I definitely am eternally grateful for PCR, mutagenic PCR design fascinates me (and committing a mortal sin in the process) and use it to find cloning and save you days of work. However if you do a search on PubMed of the work of Kari Mullis find us this. has participated in 17 articles, the first in 1971 and the last in 1995, 13 years ago that stopped working!. Of these only one deals with AIDS and published in a journal with impact factor 1.5 which is quite low. To make matters worse in 9 of the other items is at the minor in the list of authors (the first two authors are usually those who did the work and the last boss, these three are the most important sites) and where it is first author or sole author the subject is the PCR. So Dr. Kary Mullis has not conducted research on HIV that allows you to say with scientific authority that this is not the cause of AIDS. Even AIDS chapter of his autobiographical work (and the naysayers cite as an argument) gives no evidence by which the PCR can not be used to calculate the viral load (Sorry, is INGESA). Kary Mullis only based their arguments on the absence of evidence to convince and reinforced by the Nobel medal, the same below which Duesberg hides whenever he mentions to Mullis.
This entry does not seek to devalue the credibility to attack the current Mullis denier, which aim is to warn that any comments of a scientist to be questioned even though it is very famous. Any statements that are issued if it is accompanied by scientific evidence is but one opinion as the eue anyone can give and many of these views can be simple or foolish blunders. Kari Mullis invented the technique that revolutionized molecular biology but has no evidence to negate the effects of HIV on the human body, James Watson determined the structure of DNA but do not know anything genetic determination of human intelligence. I think the problem is our tendency to create heroes and idols, if a scientist comes to the media and win a prize automatically consider him a genius and anything you say is true and example. Skeptical reasoning does not accept any claim in the absence of evidence, not even a Nobel Prize, for work outside the EU gave visibility there is usually a common man burdened by faults and virtues.

And as a grand finale-noñico comic touch in this entry is in charge of video for the song on the PCR (drool joke is likely to understand the molecular only):

Native American Beadwork On Ebay

Who wants to study philosophy at UNAM?

already has spread widely in the blogosphere that sparked the scandal editorial analyst Carlos Mota with Millennium unfortunate article. Several bloggers have been responsible for answer many of the weak arguments of the article and even have shown their limitations logical. But I think everyone has failed to answer the main question is Mr. Mota:

Who wants to study philosophy at UNAM? Rereading

I had a difficult title for anyone to be able to answer it. How would I know that human beings have that intention in the head? What can you tell if Carlos is how many people want to study philosophy at the UNAM:

According to the notice to the last entrance examination which can be located easily on the Internet last year there were 642 applicants for school system and 238 for the open university system (It should be emphasized that these numbers do not include requests made to pass through regulated). So I have the pleasure to inform Carlos Mota that at least 880 people made an active effort to fill one of the 86 places that exist on a competitive selection to study philosophy at the UNAM. Caramba! could design an entire brigade of guerrillas! And that we have not told the full registration of the Faculty of Philosophy and Political Science! I hope that the next editorial Carlos extend its analysis of the flight worrying that our country suffers rifles and how is this compared to the brain drain (which I engrosaré probably in a few months).

Finally, and as it is fashionable to validate anecdotal complex argument (such as homeopathy !!!!!) I want to comment on the anecdote of the "only one lecture in the auditorium of the UNAM. But unfortunately does not inform us of the faculty and student level those who delivered his lecture where "I was talking business leadership, and I got examples or Sabritas Bimbo." and "I remember that I listened students face not understand anything, as if he were talking about another planet." I teno a hypothesis of the reasons that led to this. As public awareness doctoral study at the Center for Genomic Sciences at UNAM which is where the degree is taught in Genomic Sciences. A few years ago when she was barely entered the second or third generation at the auditorium an IBM conference was called the "Innovation Tour" ( This is the only reference I found present and explain why this is. The activity from 9 am ). My tutor was the coordinator of the doctoral degree at the time and when I talked as we had talked to the sound very interesting: Researchers at IBM were to talk to us and also we were the only presentation at a public university. The day of the presentation the audience had an acceptable hearing undergraduates and graduate students and researchers before us were two Latino IBM and IBM director of Guadalajara or so (I turn 30 my meoria almost fails). Unfortunately the atmosphere of expectation had been changing as time to define what Carlos as I listened face not understand anything, as if he were talking about another planet. " Why did this happen? because despite all patents developed by the two researchers did not come to talk science with us, came to talk about how important it was innovation, as we should look for innovation and a message of overcoming two Latinos who had excelled in IBM. Facing them were undergraduates who had ventured into a career-ups with a clear scientific definition and PhD students actively engaged in research and all they had prepared was a motivational seminar. The talk did not prosper at all, they expected to participate actively in brainstorming about how the innovation should be present in our lives and all they got were questions about algorithms to predict protein folding and biological data bases. The hall was emptied and the conference ended in a gray with a sense of confusion floating around.
The problem was that the speakers are bad or evil that students from the UNAM had we boycotted the seminar porpagandista of foreign transnational imperialist. The problem was we were not the ideal target for it, just do not expect to find students who use computers to find origins of transcription or genome assembly. Promised to return with more scientists engaged in biological and bioinformatics area but never did, I guess it's more profitable to bring two people who provide a generic conference in dozens of universities scientific speakers for 6 or 7 public universities. Maybe that same thing happened to Mr. Mota, perhaps gave the conference a theoretical economists or petroleum engineers to make your conference desuperación generic and they expected it was too small an academic transmission of knowledge. Or worse, what happened to him can happen to any speaker at the UNAM and confused faces "do not believe nothing "and" could be another explanation "with" not understand anything. "The ego can have a strong impact on the interpretation!

Free Plans For Of Roads Buggy

Pictured are the results of my second qualitative experiment . It's a petri dish where they are growing colonies of bacteria with 3 different genetic constructs. Clearly the colony to the top is blue while the bottom two are white. This is the result predicted by all other experiments I did in the doctoral and will answer questions that the reviewer of my article. However, science is not worth putting a picture and tell them to see clearly that one is blue and the other not, we have hard data and comparable to demonstrate our conclusions. Now I will start the experiment I will tell you how many times is bluer above the colony.

Hot Water From Vajina

inconclusive inconclusive

The qualitative results of my experiment is not conclusive, the result is not obvious, point. Although now I'm repeating cells grown a little since I began the quantitative experiment is what gives the hard facts. It is not the first time that tells me nothing qualitative and quantitative almost always settles it. Hopefully this time so be it ...

How To Make An Orange With Blender

1 month

A month after I started the construction of transcriptional fusions have obtained experimental evidence that they are ready. Had taken less, but over the intermediate plasmid and a restriction Ezim and had to wait to fill them. The left today all set to organize a bacterial orgy with which to move my mergers E. coli to R. etli and three days after the first experiment will serve qualitative know where we stand. I hope my promoter locate where 5 years of experimental results predict that will be, but like any experimental biologist knows: Life Happens ....
hope not "Happens to me" pa already run out of posts cryptic.
In the picture accompanying this post the result of PCR was used to verify Cloning correct my mergers. The first 6 lines are the experimental samples, the seventh and ninth are the controls which, along with the size of smaller streaks that are on my experimental samples confirms ue my fragments were cloned into the vector in the direction indicated. Also I digestion re-affirms that this outcome and costs and entered in sequence nomas pa be 100% sure;)