Physiology

Ask the Vet | Studying Feline Anatomy and Physiology – Macau Daily Times

Feline anatomyis an interesting and unique subject in the animal kingdom. Cats have extreme strength and agility for their size, along with heightened senses and the ability to reason. Their eyes are complex organs with keen eyesight and a broad range of hearing. Due to the intricate nature of a cats body and physiological properties, a delicate balance must be upheld with care. Cats are extremely resilient, but when the immune system or inner organs are affected by infection or disease, the outcome is often bleak.

Cat anatomy

The feline anatomy consists of many similarities to that of other species, namely the human body. A cat skeleton has a few more bones, but many of these are identical to those of the human skeleton. Uniquely, a cats collar bone is unattached to the other bone structures, and its muscular structure is designed for agility, allowing it to leap, twist and fall with grace. Cats have 30 teeth and claws that not only help with hunting and foraging, but assist the cat in maintaining balance, and scratching.

Cat digestive system

Since a cats dietin the wild consists primarily of the meat of other animals, the feline anatomy contains a digestive systemthat creates acids and enzymes appropriate for the breakdown of food and destruction of bacteria. A cats teeth also play a role in digestion by tearing sharply at meats and other substances. Much like other species, the salivary glands, esophagus, stomach, intestines, liver and kidneys work together to aid the digestive process.

Cat nervous system

A cats nervous systemis a unique part of the feline anatomy. Cats are born both blind and deaf, and these senses normally dont develop until about two weeks of age. The nervous system fully develops as the kitten ages, barring any trauma or infection that can hinder this process. The central nervous system is responsible for the brain and spinal cord messages, the peripheral nervous system affects muscles and movement, and the autonomic nervous system controls the involuntary functions of the body.

Cat reproductive system

The reproductive systemis the part of the feline anatomy thats responsible for mating, copulation, pregnancy and birth. Female cats, or queens, can produce 2 to 3 litters per year and can give birth to multiple kittens per pregnancy. Cats will usually not go into heat in the winter months, and spaying or neuter will not only prevent unwanted litters and strays, but can also make for a calmer and more relaxed house pet.

Feline behavior

A cats behaviouris usually evidenced by its stance or meow. Thebehaviouralaspects of the feline physiology lead us to believe thatitsa very intelligent animal. Cats have reasoning abilities, and express anger with certain posture, movements and sounds. The temperament of cats varies greatly and can swing from docile and laid back to finicky and aggressive, even pertaining to the same cat. A quick change in attitude or evidence of unexpected hiding or aggressive behavior can indicate a problem. Cats dont react well under stressful conditions and an examination may prove helpful in this case.by Dr Ruan Du Toit Bester

Hope this info helps with understanding cats moreTill next week

Ask the Vet:Royal Veterinary CentreTel: +853 28501099, +853 28523678Emergency: +853 66776611Email: info@rvcmacau.com

Dr Ruan

See more here:
Ask the Vet | Studying Feline Anatomy and Physiology - Macau Daily Times

Physiology

Let cows’ physiology guide calving check schedule – Farm Forum

By Russ Daly Professor, SDSU Extension Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian

The routine calving check is one of the most important tasks on the list of beef cattle producers during calving season.

Most producers have their own plan for how often they give their calving herd the once-over, but some may have not considered how their animals physiology should guide this schedule.

Incredible advances in technology have made it easier for producers to perform calving checks.

Wireless cameras in the calving barn mean producers can monitor cows and heifers without leaving the warmth of the house.

Devices strapped to the back end of cows can send an alert to a smartphone when the calving process commences, and drones can even be used to check up on cattle in remote areas.

Labor stages and calving: Significant events

While how cattle producers check their animals may have changed rapidly in recent years what they are watching for the stages of labor and calving have not changed.

The normal progression of labor should guide how often cattle producers walk out to the calving pen, or whip out the smartphone for a look.

Of course, the most optimal frequency of observation occurs when people dont miss events too important to miss.

Some examples are:

Cows or heifers spending too much time in Stage I labor (the preparatory stage of labor). This varies greatly among cattle based on their parity, but will normally last two-to-six hours.

Stage I labor lasting more than eight hours means a greater chance the calf will be stillborn or oxygen deprived at birth.

Cows or heifers spending too much time in or giving up on Stage II labor (the delivery stage).

Once the delivery phase begins, steady progress should be made, culminating in a live calf somewhere between 30 minutes and two hours after it commences.

Signs of distress in a calf during labor, such as a swollen tongue or signs of an abnormal (backwards, breech, etc.) birth.

A live-born calf that needs timely help starting to breathe, nurse or to be protected from cold, wet conditions.

How often should you check in?

A common rule of thumb is that cows and heifers should be checked every three hours.

Comparing this to the information above, however, would indicate that should be sufficient to determine whether a cow has been messing around (stage I labor) too long, but maybe not long enough to determine whether a cow has been in the delivery phase (stage II labor) for two hours.

Many cattle producers check their calving areas less frequently than every three hours on average. This is often a compromise among labor, time and the risk of losing a calf.

Most producers also realize, however, that certain factors can result in a group needing more or less frequent observation, such as:

First-calf heifers: More frequent checking vs. older cows.

How many cows are calving: More calving means more frequent checking.

Previous indications of dystocia problems: bigger calves than expected means more frequent checking.

Weather: cold wet weather means more frequent checking, in order to assist calves after birth.

The bottom line

All beef cattle producers want to maximize the number of live calves born. Offering timely assistance to cows and heifers having problems, and providing prompt attention to newborns are some of the ways this can be done during the calving season.

As such, erring on the side of checking calving areas more often rather than less often can be a good idea.

Go here to see the original:
Let cows' physiology guide calving check schedule - Farm Forum

Human Behavior

Security awareness relies on balance of technical, human-behavior skill sets – ZDNet

Imagine a teeter totter (or seesaw, if you will). One one side, sits a technical security practitioner. On the other side, sits a person with advanced skills in changing behaviors and community engagement. In order for the teeter totter to stay level, each person needs to have equal experience, or one needs to move further to the center to achieve the desired equilibrium. If one level of experience too demonstrably outweighs the other, the right balance of talent won't be achieved.

Talent for what? The oft-misunderstood role of the security awareness professional.

Security awareness at its most basic level is the act of applying technical security knowledge to programs and activities that raise the awareness -- and diminish risky behaviors -- of employees within a given organization. This includes everything from phishing and password test programs, to community engagement with educated practitioners teaching less security savvy users how to change their behavior to better secure protect themselves or their companies.

It's long been stated that security is not convenient, and for many years cybersecurity teams were challenged with addressing the human element of security risk (patch your systems! change your passwords! no, that is not a real email from George Clooney!) while also trying to create a secure infrastructure that defends the organization from external attackers. While the challenge of insider threats is real and malicious employees do exist, there's an equal chance that human faux pas creates a significant risk -- whether it be someone losing a device, clicking on a malicious link, or emailing the wrong file to the wrong person.

Hence the importance of security awareness programs.

According to Masha Sedova, co-founder of Elevate Security, and former trust engagement leader at Salesforce, a good awareness program gets feedback from the rest of the security organization into what the top people-centric risks are for the company and, then creates an effective campaign to address those risks.

"Security awareness was initially started about 10 years ago with the advent of regulation and compliance requirements," Sedova said. "Unfortunately, they were designed with the wrong question in mind. They ask 'show me how many people have taken your training.' Instead they should have asked 'show me metrics that your program yields improvement in X behavior.' The companies leading the charge in the awareness space today are creating their programs around this question."

This leads back to the discussion around the right balance of talent for creating these programs. According to the SANS 2016 report on security awareness, more than 80 percent of security awareness personnel have a technical background, but also need soft skills such as communications, change management, learning theory, and behavior modeling, in order to be most effective.

The report calls out one option to address this gap: Adding a communications professional to the security awareness team. Although not wrong, this is a tricky one. While facets of marketing and communications expertise are helpful for many teams, as represented in the soft skills written above, the old adage applies: "you can't secure what you don't see." And if you don't have a firm understanding of security, and how risk can be created by humans and how such risk tracks back to security technology and implementation, marketing and communications skills alone cannot create the robustness required for a security awareness team.

In fact, too much of a focus on the communications elements of the security awareness role can somewhat water down its criticality. While communications programs, educational events, community dialogue and networking are important components, security awareness programs are not built on this kind of skill. These are just merely channels for influencing more people to understand their part in securing their organizations, or their communities at large.

"Most marketing people can't identify the underlying behaviors that need most focus, and unfortunately most technology-focused security people aren't great at that either," Sedova said. "Security folks will say 'employees need to be less dumb' which is hard to measure and drive a specific campaign for. And marketing people will say 'don't click on phishing links' but can't spend the time to explain why an employee should care about not clicking on phishing links and how it connects to a bigger picture. A good security awareness practitioner can bridge both skills sets."

The other component in achieving the proper torque in the seesaw, is ensuring there are resources available to fuel these security awareness programs. They are must-haves as much as basic security programs are themselves. According to the same SANS security awareness report, more than 50 percent of security awareness professionals survive on a budget of less than $5,000, or those professionals are not able to dedicate all of their time to awareness. The report also says that the amount of support is relative to the maturity of a security awareness program, so a focus on education, the human actor, and demonstrable metrics is crucial.

Corporate support, whether it be freeing up budget or resources, for security awareness programs and professionals is a must-have, as they need to scale as their organizations do.

"What needs to happen are programs that can create and educate local security champions throughout the organization," Sedova said. "This includes subjects such as secure coding, vulnerability identification and remediation, and threat sharing. These programs are great areas for security awareness practitioners to partner with security subject matter experts and create effective programs that scale. Overtime, I hope to see this happening more in this field."

View post:
Security awareness relies on balance of technical, human-behavior skill sets - ZDNet

Human Behavior

Can microbes make us better people? – Mother Nature Network (blog)

Why did human beings evolve to be nice to one another? From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for us to go out of our way to help others, especially when we don't receive any direct benefit. But new research suggests there may be an evolutionary reason that kindness exists, and it may have more to do with microbes than genetics.

Most theories that attempt to explain the evolution of altruism focus on the individual; some people see the benefit of helping the community to help their own species. These theories assume that altruism is genetically encoded that some people just have bigger hearts than others, and that quality is determined by the genes passed down to them. But a new study has found that altruism may have less to do with the kindness in someone's heart and more to do with the number of microbes in their gut.

Researchers at Tel-Aviv University in Israel recently took a look at the role that microbes play in human behavior to determine the evolutionary benefit of altruistic behavior. We already know that viruses and bacteria can change a host's behavior. Rabies, for example, can make an individual more aggressive. There are certain parasites that can cause their insect hosts to commit suicide, and there are types of plasma that can manipulate their bacterial hosts into cooperating with one another.

The new study, which was published in a recent issue of Nature, proposed that microbes could make humans act altruistically, meaning it's microbes that explain and determine the evolution of human kindness.

Using a series of computer models, researchers tested a number of scenarios involving interactions between humans, some with altruism-inducing microbes and others without. They found that humans could not only be influenced by microbes to act altruistically, but that doing so would help promote the transfer of these microbes from one individual to another. In other words, microbes may make their human hosts act altruistically to give the microbe a better chance of spreading to the new host. That's evolution.

Researchers also compared the altruism-inducing microbe theory with the possibility that niceness is simply encoded in our genes. In these models, they found that genetically-encoded altruism would not evolve over time as it would with a microbial influence. They also noted that while genetic kindness could persist from generation to generation, microbe-induced niceness is much more likely to spread to the next generation.

"I believe the most important aspect of the work is that it changes the way we think about altruism from centering on the animals (or humans) performing the altruistic acts to their microbes," Dr. Lilach Hadany, a researcher of population genetics and evolution theory at Tel Aviv University and a lead researcher for the study, told Phys.org.

The microbial theory explains why altruism tends to "spread" within a community. One act of kindness often causes a snowballing of such acts within a population. That wouldn't be caused by genetics, but it does make sense when you consider the possibility that altruism is caused by microbes.

Can microbes make us better people? It's certainly possible. And if we have to "catch" something while interacting with another human being, wouldn't it be nice if that something was a dose of kindness?

Continued here:
Can microbes make us better people? - Mother Nature Network (blog)

Human Behavior

Contagious yawning, laughing and scratching gives clues to how the human brain works – KRCU

In 1962, a strange epidemic swept through several communities in Tanganyika, present-day Tanzania. It wasnt a virus, but laughter among teenage schoolgirls. The contagious laughter, which lasted for about two and a half years, afflicted about 1,000 people and forced at least 14 schools to temporarily shut down.

Experts later determined that the origin of the epidemic was psychological, perhaps related to stress caused by the presence of British colonialism. But such events have raised scientific questions about why humans cant control behaviors such as laughing, yawning, coughing and shivering and why they spread among groups of people.

We are a part of a human herd whose behavior is often the involuntary playing out of an ancient neurological script that is so familiar that it goes unnoticed, wrote neuroscientist Robert Provine in his book, "Curious Behavior."

Consider what is really happening when your body is hijacked by an observed yawn or you spontaneously join others in a communal chorus of ha-ha-ha," Provine wrote. "You dont decide to yawn or laugh contagiously. It just happens.

Provinediscovered that people are 30 times more likely to laugh around others than alone. To date, there has been much research thats observed socially contagious behaviors in humans and animals, but scientists are just starting to look into what makes them ripple through groups of people.

Empathy may not have much to do with it

Many studies have suggested that empathy could explain contagious yawning. A study published a year ago, for example, indicated that women are more susceptible to catch yawns than men. Researchers also noted that women score higher on empathy tests, and thought the two might be associated.

Another study published in 2008 found that dogs may yawn in response to their owners, but not to strangers or other dogs. Researchers wrote that because dogs are incredibly skilled at reading human cues and generally have unique social interactions with people, there is the potential that dogs may also have developed the capacity for empathy towards humans, and may catch human yawns.

Other studies, however, suggest that empathy is less significant in contagious behaviors than we might think. A paper in 2014 published by Duke University researchers, for example, analyzed various factors that influenced yawning among more than 300 human volunteers. Scientists considered a number of influencers such as empathy, energy levels and age. They saw that contagious yawning decreased among older people.

In our study, there was a connection between contagious yawning and empathy, but it was explained by a stronger connection between contagious yawning and age, said Elizabeth Cirulli, a geneticist at Duke University and an author of that paper.

Other research also showed that young children arent likely to catch yawns from other people, either.

Itch researchers at Washington University believe empathy has very little to do with such behaviors. This month, they published a study in the journal Science that showed that mice will scratch themselves in response to seeing videos of other mice that have chronic itch problems.

At the beginning, this [experiment] may sound like a crazy idea because, as you know, mice are nocturnal. They have very poor vision, said Zhou-Feng Chen, director for the schools Center for the Study of Itch.

Chen and his colleagues examined the brains of the non-itchy mice in the study and found that a specific

region, called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, released a chemical thats been known to signal when theres an itch that needs to be scratched.

Basically, our study shows those kinds of contagious behaviors are instinctive behaviors and are hardwired into our neurocircuitry, Chen said.

However, more research is needed to understand exactly how involved the brain is when we uncontrollably copy each others behaviors. As Cirulli noted, other factors need to be examined. Empathy, she said, shouldnt be ruled out, but is likely just as connected to such behaviors as height is to weight.

I dont think empathy is totally unrelated, Cirulli said. Its just that its absolutely not everything thats going on with contagious yawning. In some cases, its a proxy for something else.

We behave like the pack to survive

In the animal kingdom, one principle that prevails is strength in numbers. Snow geese, for example, will fly in groups as large as 5,000. A pack of zebras will whine loudly when they detect a predator nearby.

Some scientists believe that humans evolved to uncontrollably copy others behavior, as a means of communicating important information.

You can imagine millions of years ago when animals lived widely and maybe living in places where there are parasites," Chen said. "If all the animals begin to scratch, it could mean the area that theyre in may be dangerous.

He further speculated that as scratching became a regular way to alarm others that they needed to leave certain environments, its possible that the behavior became innate and written into our genetics over time.

From an evolutionary point of view, contagious behaviors actually help animals to better survive because you dont have to learn everything from scratch, Chen said.

How the brain works

While it might seem frivolous to study why we catch yawns and participate in other kinds of unconsciously provoked micmicry, the research could provide fundamental insight into how our brains work and develop. For instance, a 2009 study by University of Zurich researchers showed that contagious yawning and laughing happened much less frequently with people who have schizophrenia. Yawning also spread much less among people with autism.

Such findings still need further research to be understood. However, its promising that contagious scratching is observed among mice, for example, since theyre often used as experimental subjects to understand brain diseases.

Reflecting on her contagious yawning study, Cirulli mused that it would be interesting to study how genetics might influence a persons susceptibility to this behavior and how that might be connected to neurological conditions.

Because big genetic studies have been done on schizophrenia and autism and other diseases, you can calculate someones risks of developing those diseases from their genetic information and you can see if its associated with contagious yawning, she said.

Follow Eli Chen on Twitter:@StoriesByEli

Read this article:
Contagious yawning, laughing and scratching gives clues to how the human brain works - KRCU

Genetics

The weirder side of obesity: genetic forms of obesity are rare yet numerous – CNN

Despite their focus on rare genetic syndromes, the researchers say their work will be helpful to the millions worldwide who have lost control of their weight for reasons other than genetics.

"If you know the gene and the function of the gene, then you know which biological mechanism is defective," said David Meyre, senior author of the study and an associate professor at McMaster University's School of Medicine in Ontario, Canada. This knowledge of obesity genetics, then, can be applied to more common forms of the condition, he said.

A case in point would be leptin, which is a hormone produced by the body's fat cells and is found to be deficient in some people due to genetic mutations. The gene responsible for producing the "satiety hormone," as leptin is known, was first identified in 1990. Since then, knowledge of this gene has shifted our understanding of fat cells and how weight gain occurs.

"The reason we studied this is very simple," said Meyre. "Every time I was writing a research paper and I was describing what we knew about the genetics of obesity, I didn't have a reference." One day, he decided to write the necessary reference himself, since he suspected the 20 to 30 commonly known genetic syndromes might be, in fact, an underestimation.

"For the study, we focused on monogenic forms of obesity," said Meyre. He explained that monogenic or "Mendelian" forms mean that if you have one mutation, you develop the disease. "It's not that it increases your risk, it's 100% sure you develop the disease," he said. For example, Huntington's disease, a progressive brain disorder that causes uncontrolled movements and loss of thinking ability, is caused by a single inherited gene mutation.

The monogenic obesity syndromes are very rare, Meyre noted, so rare they may collectively represent only 0.5% of the obese population in Canada -- one in a million births.

Meyre and his colleagues from McMaster University and University of British Columbia searched seven databases for papers on the topic. The team adopted a systematic strategy for reviewing the scientific literature, which included two independent reviews of each paper.

All told, the researchers analyzed 161 papers and found 79 obesity syndromes reported in the scientific literature.

"My intuition was correct," said Meyre.

In the monogenic obesity syndromes, not only does the genetic defect result in obesity but it also causes additional abnormal features, including mental disability, characteristic facial features, kidney disease and heart malformation.

Of the 79 syndromes identified, 19 had the genetics worked out completely so that a simple lab test would be able to confirm the condition. Another 11 had been partially clarified, while 27 had been mapped to a chromosomal region. For the remaining 22 syndromes, researchers had not yet identified the genes or location along the chromosomes.

"Identifying genes is very important for the families," said Meyre. He explained that some of the more common syndromes have been treated with a hormone that works very well to improve symptoms. If the genetics are worked out for each of these syndromes, that should enable scientists to find or develop appropriate treatments.

"We also hope that our study will help clinicians to recognize these syndromes," said Meyre. Since in the entire course of their careers, doctors may encounter just one, maybe two patients with these syndromes, most of the time, due to a lack of familiarity and information, the conditions go unrecognized and patients do not get help.

Additionally, the results will help scientists better understand the genes and molecules important to obesity among members of the general population.

Mary Freivogel, president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, found the comprehensive nature of the new study to be a strength.

"One weakness of the study is that some of these obesity syndromes are so rare that it was not possible for the authors to determine how often the syndrome occurs in the general population nor how reliable the information reported about the syndrome was," said Freivogel, who played no part in the new study.

"Most of the obesity in the United States is NOT syndromic, said Freivogel. She explained that the overwhelming majority of cases are "polygenic and multifactorial," meaning it has resulted from a combination of multiple genetic factors, as well as environmental and lifestyle factors. Freivogel added that anyone wishing to undergo a genetic test might want to talk with a counselor to ensure the test is the right choice and any results are interpreted correctly.

Beales, who was not involved in the new study, also felt pleased that someone had updated this "specialised category of obesity." However, he disagrees with the recommendation proposed by Meyre and his co-authors to name each disease after the scientists who discovered them.

"This is an antiquated notion and unhelpful," said Beales, who observed the preferred name for DiGeorge syndrome -- a common genetic disorder resulting in cognitive impairment and other medical complications -- is now called Deletion22 syndrome, which is a more useful way to look at the disease.

Still, the work has its virtues, said Beales.

"I think where a catalogue of this nature is valuable is that it provides a good resource for researchers who are interested in extrapolating from rare to common," said Beales. "The Mendelian disorders have an untapped potential to reveal mechanistic insights (and possibly new treatments) to common (non-syndromic) obesity."

Dr. Liam R. Brunham, an assistant professor of medicine at University of British Columbia, said the most remarkable finding of the review may be that of the 79 obesity syndromes, the genetic basis of only one-quarter of them is known. Very likely, then, there is "a huge amount regarding the genetics of obesity that remains to be discovered," said Brunham. He was not involved in the study.

Using leptin as an example, Brunham said there's much that can be learned regarding the biology of obesity from even a single gene.

"This suggests that discovering the genetic basis of the remaining obesity syndromes will yield huge advances in our understanding of obesity, which could lead to new opportunities for its treatment and prevention," said Brunham.

Here is the original post:
The weirder side of obesity: genetic forms of obesity are rare yet numerous - CNN

Genetics

Cosmic Dopamine: On Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics – Discover Magazine (blog)

Back in 2015, I ran a three part post (1,2,3) on Dr Kenneth Blum and his claim to be able to treat what he calls Reward Deficiency Syndrome (RDS) with nutritional supplements.

Today my interest was drawn to a 2015 paper from Blum and colleagues, called Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics: Can Physical Forces Induce Epigenetic Influence on Future Genomes?.

In this paper, Blum et al. put forward some novel proposals about possible links between physics, epigenetics, and neuroscience. For instance, the authors ask whether an early human getting high after eating a root might have provided the human race with a genetic memory of intoxication:

It is quite possible that a cave man ingesting Mandragova officianarum (mandrake root) a psychoactive substance with extreme aphrodisiacal powers may have experienced an effect, which passed through genetic memory to his offspring and later generations. The experience, which was stored as a pleasant one, may or may not be experienced later in the recipient offspring. Nevertheless, suitable extragenetic stimuli may have triggered consciousness of that stored pleasurable experience for future generations. Given that extra-genetic triggering action (possibly certain chemicals, toxins, etc. having epigenetic effects), the recipient offspring may believe it to be a fantasy or hallucination, whereas in reality, the experience may have its origin as far back as reordered history, or even as far back as the first intake of mandrake root.

This theory reminds me of the work of another speculative historian of genetic memory, a certain L. Ron Hubbard. Blum et al.s paper features several strange ideas such as this one.

To be fair, it does include some more sensible material, including expositions of pertinent topics in physics and philosophy. However, sadly, not all of this material is original. Yes, Ive been plagiarism hunting again.

For instance, Blum et al. opens with a series of paragraphs about cosmology which appear to be rather closely based on a pair of articles by Adam Frank and Zeeya Merali published in 2010 in this very Discover Magazine. Franks post is not cited at all; Meralis is, but not in such a way as to make it clear that the text has been adapted from it. Heres Turnitins analysis of the overlap between Blum et al. and Franks post:

Heres a paragraph from Frank:

The implicit understanding is that natures rules are eternal, unbreakable, and all-controlling. As Albert Einstein once said, learning to read the laws of physics is like reading the mind of God. Such thinking has animated much of the enterprise of physics ever since Isaac Newton formulated his laws of universal gravitation in 1687: one set of laws for both the heavens and the earth. The idea took full root a century ago, when Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. If we work hard enough, he suggested, we will eventually find the elegant and simple rules that undergird the entire universe. Physicists have taken it as an article of faith that the bedrock laws are there to be discovered, if only we are clever enough in looking for them. The dogged pursuit of that ultimate truth has led to many great discoveries, but recently it has begun to seem like a promise unkept.

And heres the corresponding text from Blum et al.:

It is implied that natures rules are eternal, unbreakable, and all controlling. Ideas like these have fueled much of the physics field since Isaac Newton had formulated his laws of universal gravitation in 1687. His concepts took root approximately a century ago, when Einstein had also developed his general relativity theory. However, careful scrutiny of the so called book of physics and the pursuit of this truth has led to many great physics discoveries, but unfortunately has begun to seem like an unkept promise in the clear understanding of our universe.

Its perhaps not the worst case of plagiarism Ive seen, but its still clear that Blum et al. reused text from Discover and edited it.

Maybe, though, we cant hold the authors responsible for this copying. Perhaps they were merely unconsciously acting out an inherited genetic memory a memory formed millions of years ago, the day one monkey first copied the behaviour of another?

h/tSmut Clyde; see also his coverage of Blums cheese-based imagery.

Blum, K., Braverman, E., Waite, R., Archer, T., Thanos, P., Badgaiyan, R., Febo, M., Dushaj, K., Li, M., & Gold, M. (2015). Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics: Can Physical Forces Induce Epigenetic Influence on Future Genomes? NeuroQuantology, 13 (1) DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.799

Continued here:
Cosmic Dopamine: On Neuroquantum Theories of Psychiatric Genetics - Discover Magazine (blog)

Genetics

Why some people make stupid choices? Genetics may hold the answer – Genetic Literacy Project

The premise of the Darwin Awards, [which are annuallygiven tothose who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it,] is that common sense is heritable. In other words, we pass it on to our kids. But do we?

Genetics influence all these things. In fact the first law of behavior genetics, says Stuart Ritchie, who recently wrote a book on the scientific study of intelligence, is that all human psychological traits are partly heritable.

For instance, risky behavioris partly genetic. An identical and fraternal twin study published in Behavior Genetics suggests that 60 percent of differences in mens desire for new, unusual,and risky experiences (sensation seeking) is heritable.

Because so many genes make up a given polygenic trait, however, the precise genetic equation of common sense and other characteristics is unknownAnother way genetics may affect common sense is through our environment.

For example, a study published in Emotion, Space,and Society explains that environmental factors can change the way DNA is folded, thereby affecting traits such as mood regulation and impulse control.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Is Common Sense Genetic?

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia.

Read this article:
Why some people make stupid choices? Genetics may hold the answer - Genetic Literacy Project

Genetics

An Exclusive Q&A with DNA Genetics’ Don and Aaron – Cannabis Business Times

Industry veteran Mel Frank speaks with the duo about genetics, the international seed market, the hype around THC and more.

This article originally appeared in the March 2017 print edition ofCannabis Business Times. To subscribe, clickhere.

DNA Genetics exemplifies the modern cultivation business one that was attracted to the industry out of a love for the plant and now carefully balances the culture of the cannabis community with a hugely successful, global business. Since opening in 2003, the company, owned by brothers Don and Aaron, has grown to approximately 40 employees and has operations in California, Amsterdam, Canada and Chile.

DNA has a track record with which few can compete including more than 150 awards for their genetics and induction into the High Times Seed Bank Hall of Fame in 2009. And recently, the duo has been forging a new track, not only with their thriving seed company, but through a consulting business that has already landed them a partnership with Canadian cannabis titan Tweed, Inc. (a subsidiary of Canopy Growth Corporation).

We have added an award-winning global powerhouse in breeding and genetics, acclaimed for the unique strain profiles their cannabis possesses," said Tweed President Mark Zekulin in a press release announcing the partnership in October 2015. According to the release, The only place where Canadian patients will be able to acquire true, certified DNA strains grown to DNA standards will be Tweed.

Here, Don and Aaron are interviewed by one of the most well-known names in cannabis cultivation, Mel Frank. Frank has nearly five decades of cultivation experience, is an internationally recognized marijuana book author, publisher and photographer, and has been contributing original articles to cannabis magazines since 1976.

In this revealing interview, Frank talks with Don and Aaron about the origins of and current state of the international seed market, genetics and the future of patents in the industry, why the hype around THC is misguided, an announcement the team makes publicly here for the first time, and more.

To read the full article inCannabis Business Times'March edition, clickhere.

Original post:
An Exclusive Q&A with DNA Genetics' Don and Aaron - Cannabis Business Times

Genetics

Cancer Genetics, Inc. closed with a change of 16.42% in the Previous Trading Session – Free Observer

Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) belongs to the Healthcare sector with an industry focus on Medical Laboratories & Research, with Mr. Panna Sharma as Chief Exec. Officer, Pres and Director.

The company has been one of the biggest innovators in Medical Laboratories & Research employing approximately 223 full time employees.

Key Statistics:

Financials:

The company reported an impressive total revenue of 27.05 Million in the last fiscal year.

If you look at the companys income statement over the past years, you will see that the company is constantly posting gross profit: In 2014, CGIX earned gross profit of 1.75 Million, in 2015 3.94 Million gross profit, while in 2016 Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) produced 9.95 Million profit.

Currently the shares of Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) has a trading volume of 1.87 Million shares, with an average trading volume of 970625 shares with shares dropping to a 52 week low of $1.1 on Nov 4, 2016, and the companys shares hitting a 52 week high on Mar 24, 2017 of $3.95.

Looking at the current price of the stock and the 52 week high and low, it suggests that the stock is likely to go Down in the future.

Earnings per share (EPS) breaks down the profitability of the company on a single share basis, and for Cancer Genetics, Inc. the EPS stands at -0.23 for the previous quarter, while the analysts predicted the EPS of the stock to be -0.28, suggesting the stock exceeded the analysts expectations.

Another critical number in evaluating a stock is P/E or the price to earnings ratio.

The TTM operating margin is -65.9%. The return on invested capital at -54.5%, which is good, compared to its peers.

The Free Cash Flow or FCF margin is 0%, which means that the business has healthy reserve funds for contingencies that may arise.

Stock is currently moving with a positive distance from the 200 day simple moving average of approximately 103.68%, and has a solid year to date (YTD) performance of 188.89% which means the stock is constantly adding to its value from the previous fiscal year end price.

Future Expectations:

The target price for Cancer Genetics, Inc. (CGIX) is $6/share according to the consensus of analysts working on the stock, with an expected EPS of $-0.22/share for the current quarter.

The companys expected revenue in the current quarter to be 7.1 Million, seeing a projected current quarter growth of 53.2%, and per annum growth estimates over the next 5 year period of around 40%.

Original post:
Cancer Genetics, Inc. closed with a change of 16.42% in the Previous Trading Session - Free Observer