DNA research of dog breeds
It makes sense that a lot of small dogs share DNA with pugs. Pugs were often bred with larger dogs to produce smaller versions. When they get more breeds into this research, it might be worth getting my dog tested to see what the heck she is.
Ignore the incorrect title to the link
The title should be:
Where did your dog come from? New tree of breeds may hold the answer.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/where-did-your-dog-come-new-tree-breeds-may-hold-answer
Check out the #BIllMeetScienceTwitter hashtag on Twitter. Unfortunately I don’t know the story behind the hashtag but I like seeing so many scientist on Twitter. It’s also reassuring to see high visibility of female scientists.
ETA
Here’s the story behind the hashtag.
This is a better link for background
https://storify.com/may_gun/billmeetsciencetwitter-in-context
The headline for the Forbes article is misleading.
A few scientists on Twitter decided Bill wasn’t letting enough experts talk about science on his new Netflix show.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/billmeetsciencetwitter?vertical=default&src=hash
Dragon!
This is really awesome and the photos are spectacular. I look forward to reading more about this nodosaur.
Originally shared by David Brin
How about a dinosaur that is so well preserved that it “might have been walking around a couple of weeks ago,” as revealed in this spectacular find in Canada. Skin, scales and yes a face. “As it lumbered across the landscape between 110 million and 112 million years ago, almost midway through the Cretaceous period, the 18-foot-long, nearly 3,000-pound behemoth was the rhinoceros of its day.”
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/dinosaur-nodosaur-fossil-discovery/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/dinosaur-nodosaur-fossil-discovery/
Facts aren’t optional.
It’s one reason among many that I marched for science.
#MarchforScience
Hey that’s me in the red shirt (same shirt in my profile pic).
#MarchforScience
March for Science
Did you march? I’m at the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine conference. It’s more or less the conference to go to for MRI folks. There was a break in the conference for a small rally before the march. I was surprised and pleased to see so many people march for science here.
#MarchforScience
Originally shared by Betsy McCall
March for Science
I’m marching for science, are you? Science relies on facts. Science uses logic and facts. That doesn’t mean that scientists and science enthusiasts don’t have emotions or political thoughts.
I love science and science communication. I really enjoy cutting through the jargon and interacting with people who are curious about the world and want to use science to better understand the world. You don’t have to be a scientist to march for science.
However, I’m marching for science because I am a scientist. Many professions, such as teachers, doctors, and fireman, can help people in a direct, personal, and profound way. When I was in graduate school, I was working on artificial blood. I imagined how many people that could help if my research led to a commercial product. I have that same passion in my current research, using imaging techniques to better characterize responses to cancer therapy. Without science, I could not do what I do. That’s why I march for science.
Cutting overhead, it’s not that simple
Cutting overhead on NIH grants isn’t a magic bullet to help cut the NIH budget. Overhead from NIH grants helps cover infrastructure costs that you can’t directly budget on your grants. For example, my MRI scanners use a lot of power. Overhead from multiple grants helps offset the cost of keeping the lights on. I’m not a big fan of indirect costs tied to grants when I’m a primary investigator. There’s often a lack of transparency and the feeling that you’re getting less of your hard earned grant money. However, when I wear my facility manager hat, I understand that there are a lot of things that need to be paid for by someone, e.g., electricity, animal care support, etc. Indirect costs from grants covers many of those things.
“The costs are real and necessary for the conduct of research. It has to be paid for somewhere. And this historical bargain between the federal government and performers of research has been that the government pays part of the infrastructure costs,” says Tony DeCrappeo, president of the Council on Governmental Relations, a Washington, D.C.–based association of research universities and institutes that helps its members navigate federal regulations. Foundations, he adds, can get by charging a lower rate because they allow researchers to charge certain costs to their grant—such as leasing space—that can’t be charged to their NIH grant. And nonfederal grants may involve fewer regulations, lowering regulatory costs.
Another overlooked area for the need for indirect costs is the growing need for administrative help to cover things like human data privacy issues.
The regulatory burden can be particularly high for medical schools, which must adhere to regulations for human-subject research, privacy protection and financial conflicts of interest, among others. The Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington DC says that 70 of its members have spent $22.6 million implementing conflicts-of-interest reporting guidelines that came into effect this year.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trump-wants-2018-nih-cut-come-overhead-payments
Reliable Science News
Where are you getting your science news? The analysis summarized by Nature.com paints a sad picture for what I’ll call general science news. Of course many of us get news specific to our fields via specialized journals, conferences, and colleagues. For the general audience, scientists and science enthusiasts, there are some poor choices out there.
I think it’s great they didn’t mention IFLS, which is on par with Food Babe. I am curious why Mosaic wasn’t mentioned.