• 0 Posts
  • 54 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • AlolanYoda@mander.xyztoScience Memes@mander.xyzBanana
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    In Portugal, it’s very common to find bananas from the Madeira islands being sold in stores, even in like our equivalent of Walmart or Carrefour.

    They’re like half the length of a Cavendish, a bit more tasty, but still very similar. I very much prefer them.

    I know it’s not as exotic as your selection but it was something I was able to eat regularly and pretty accessibly there




  • AlolanYoda@mander.xyztoScience Memes@mander.xyzHELP HIM.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    We can probably never get rid of animal testing entirely for clinical research, we’ll always need to validate simulations in animals before moving on to humans.

    Getting rid of animal testing is the exact purpose of organ-on-a-chip research! This is actual bioengineered cultures, not simulations (not dissing on computational biochemistry - also extremely important)

    If you can test without the full animal, then models (in this context, models = what you use for testing, be it cultures or animals) based on human induced pluropotent stem cells (ie cells taken from live, adult humans and forced to revert to a stem cell status) in an in vitro setting can actually be more relevant to human physiology than live animal models.

    There are a lot of caveats (if it were easy, it would already be done), and there are barriers needed to be overcome for in vitro models to even come close to in vivo and ex vivo models. But a lot of people are investing in it, not (only) due to ethics but also due to lower model cost and better match of in vitro results with the actual effect on a live human body.

    I can give papers when I get home, if you want.

    Edit: I went on a deep dive on medical applications: suffice it to say, this is useless for behavioral experiments






  • My input: I’ve never searched for papers in Scihub directly. I usually find them off Google scholar or something, and then put the paywalled URL or the DOI (an identifier you can usually find in the paywalled website) in Scihub to go to that paper. I don’t think search capabilities are in scihub’s scope.





  • Can you explain this a bit better?

    I’ve seen many journals with this “open access” option (where the authors pay for open access, rather than the readers paying to read it). But the paid option never skipped the peer review process, as far as I can tell.

    I just think the last author of this paper is a big deal in his field and can do whatever



  • Maybe I am in a different environment (particularly not being American), but the old scientists still exist and are still hard at work. In fact, all scientists I know (and I work in academia) care very little for misinformation on their day to day lives. They’ll make fun of it, but don’t have any more contact with them than anyone else. They still spend most of their time working on their actual projects. The only thing that changed is that now they’re bending over backwards to include AI in their grants to make sure they’re accepted, but having to include the latest buzzwords is nothing new.

    Science communicators, on the other hand, yeah, those probably have their hands full with fixing misinformation.