Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Q: What are DNA banks?
Krishna: DNA banking is a long term storage of an individual’s genetic material.
DNA is most commonly extracted from blood, but can also be obtained from saliva and other tissues.
Scientists are capable of retrieving genetic information from hair, skin, blood, sperm, tissue, and saliva as long as the sample contains intact DNA. Nucleotide sequences between humans differ by only 0.1%. Even so, this 0.1% includes approximately three million bases. DNA can be analyzed through restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and Polymerase chain reactions (PCR). Restriction enzymes digest portions of the DNA, leaving short fragments. These fragments are sorted through gel electrophoresis. The gel demonstrates the length of the fragments allowing specialists to determine whether the fragments came from the same person. PCR is more commonly used today because it more efficient and requires smaller samples of genetic samples.
It has many advantages.
Molecular techniques are becoming increasingly important in the study and management of genetic resources. DNA has been routinely extracted and stored from the nuclei, mitochondria and chloroplasts of many plant species, together with derivatives such as RNA, cDNA and genes. Technologies are available to allow all these to be stored quickly and at low cost in DNA banks as an insurance policy against loss of crop diversity. DNA storage has so far been undertaken with objectives other than conservation in mind; usually to allow genetic material to be made readily available for molecular application.
DNA banks help in conservation. The threat of extinction for many species, both known and as yet undiscovered, grows ever greater as whole ecosystems vanish, human populations proliferate, and human-mediated interference increases. DNA storage is particularly useful for those species that cannot be conserved in traditional seed or field genebanks and nor conserved in situ due to high risk in that area.
Even though efforts to compile listings of threatened plants and animals are developing, current views of timing of recovery from anthropogenic extinctions suggest that many millions of years will be required for replenishment to present-day level. The establishment and scientific management of nature reserves and national parks in as many parts of the world as possible is imperative. This is especially true for the tropics, where the largest numbers of threatened and endangered species may reside. Major efforts to preserve biological diversity are under way through habitat conservation; other in situ support; living collections as maintained in botanical gardens, arboreta, and zoological parks; gamete and seed banks for species of agricultural interest; and the amassing and documentation of museum specimens.
But the most fundamental derivative of a species is the information in its genome, currently most easily preserved in the form of purified high-molecular-weight DNA. DNA banks, may be considered appropriate in the context of current conservation priorities.
Q: Can we trust scientists' words?
Krishna: If they provide reliable evidence, yes!
Q: What is the point in obtaining information that one will never use? Why should an art student like me read about science?
Krishna: This is a real story! When we were doing our PhDs, I went into a forest area with some of my friends. We stayed in a guest house near the forest. One of our lady colleagues brought a reel of thread and a sewing needle with her. When one of our male colleagues saw them in her bag, he laughed at her and ridiculed her.
Just half an hour after that, he came back and apologized to her. We were surprised. Then he slowly asked her, ''Ma'am, can I borrow your needle and thread? I tore my pants!"
We all laughed and laughed.
Do you think, learning about science is a waste of time? Then think again. It sometimes becomes a question of life and death. Scientific illiteracy can kill you sometimes. Don't trust me? Read this article...
Q: Why are physicists smart?
We deal with invisible microbes and their molecular mechanisms that create havoc, not with heavy stars and planets that make you and your head go round and round till you feel giddy!
Even I think physicists are smart. Chemists are smart. All people who deal with science are smart.
Because we cannot see microbes without microscopes. We cannot move even a millimeter without biochemistry.
All science subjects are interlinked. Why, without a brain working properly, even physicists can’t think. That is Biology helping physicists!
Q: Why can I see talk and interact with spirits and demon and see their world?
Q: Why do we use Greek numericals in social groups of animals? What do they denote?
Krishna: Observations of social animals and their behaviours by researchers made them classify them in this way. Research into the social behaviors of captive wolves led to coining the terms Alpha, Beta, and Omega. Subsequent studies of wolves in the wild found that the social hierarchy is completely different, based on familial relations, and not on the aggressiveness or dominance of a particular male (the alpha in a pack is typically the female with the most offspring).
Further observational studies by researchers on primates (which we have more in common with than wild wolves) demonstrated that the most dominant male in the primate hierarchy wasn’t necessarily the strongest or most physical, but the one which provided the most benefit to the widest number of members of its troop.
Then some people tried to apply it to human beings too. In organizational and social structures, the healthiest groups consist of well adapted individuals whose leadership structure places the most emphasis on servant leadership, consensus leadership styles, and top-down responsiveness.
People treated ‘Alpha female’ as the most attractive, powerful or domineering woman they know. However, female alphas are not so easily recognizable. They might be beautiful or bossy or authoritative, but this is not what defines them. It is more of a spectrum.
Then people are classified depending on their roles in a social structures like this...
Betas: Side-kicks or enforcers of alpha leadership.
Nu’s: The exact middle letter of the Greek Alphabet, Nu’s are fillers. They provide conversation, gossip and support for the Alpha.
Zeta’s: The jokester, comic relief, clown, goofball of the group.
Omega’s: (The last letter of the Greek Alphabet) The victims, the bullied, the weaklings.
Sampi’s: (An obsolete letter of the Greek Alphabet, often forgotten) The Invisibles, the forgotten ones whose quiet or shy demeanor often means they are not included or counted.
In modern sense alpha denotes, leadership qualities, the person with purpose, courage, balance, who is a risk taker and highly determined.
Is this classification really science? It is something on the border between science and art!
Q: Despite tremendous progress in science and technology, why aren't we progressing as much as we should?
Krishna: People are capable of great brilliance but they don’t use their intelligence properly. 'Some controls' pull back people for various reasons, if they are not cautious.
People close their minds stalling knowledge entering their minds, refuse to come out of their comfort zones, refuse to think on their own and critically, refuse to overcome their biases and irrational beliefs, refuse to take informed decisions and refuse to take new directions. Majority of the people are like that.
If the minority intellectuals try to undo all these things wasting their precious time, that acts as a drag to progress.
Q: Why do many people claim science has proven paranormal things aren't real when science isn't even capable of doing so?
It is your baby, you conceived it, it is your duty to bring it up and show to the world that it exists. Why should science bring up someone else’s baby?
Even then science tried it but couldn’t find any evidence of anything you hallucinate.
"The accepted wisdom is that magnetite pulls iron from the [magma] melt before the melt rises and gets erupted out at continental [volcano] arcs," study author Ming Tang, an assistant professor at Rice University, said in a statement. "Iron depletion is most pronounced at continental arcs, where the crust is thick, and much less so in island arcs, where the crust is thin."
If magnetite was sucking up iron, then, you would expect magnetite to be more plentiful where the continental crust was thicker, and iron depletion correspondingly greater. But the thickness of the crust doesn't correlate with levels of magnetite.
But garnet abundance, the authors said, does correlate with crust thickness. Almandine — an iron-rich variety of garnet — forms best under high-pressure, high-temperature conditions. Conditions like these are common below the land-based volcanoes that form at continental margins, when dense oceanic crust slides beneath continental crust. With garnet more plentiful below such volcano chains — known as continental arcs — and iron less plentiful there, the researchers saw a correlation worth studying further.
This is a single study. And let me caution you more studies are needed to establish the fact.Q: Are scientists trying to become like God (omniscience)?