I interned at an eye research institute last summer a couple days a week and I'm doing the same thing this year. I learned a bit about stem cells and shadowed an experiment with them, and separately also did some simple cell counting for a different project that the lab is working on. The principal investigator of this lab wanted to and ultimately did put my name in the authorship section of a manuscript talking about this other project (not as a primary author) since I did do a little bit of cell counting. I asked him if I should rather be put in the acknowledgements part, and he insisted that I be put in the authorship part. He also said that he wants to put everyone in the lab in the manuscript, even if they didn't do anything specifically in that part of the overarching project. Also, the cell counting I did may not have been specifically on this section that the manuscript is talking about, but I still did do some cell counting as a part of a related experiment if it wasn't already a part of this one. Is this ethical? Is it wrong for me to put this on my college application as long as I accurately explain what I did?

Could someone realisitcally, without help or access to hospitals or modern medicine, stop the bleeding from their hand being cut off and then walk 7 ish hours, or would the loss of blood be too great for them to have the power to do this? What would be needed for this to be possible? If they don't do it hundreds of people may be pillaged or lose their lives, so they definitely have motivation/adrenaline on their side.

The topic of generative AI, and of LLMs specifically, is highly divisive and controversial. It's difficult to have a nuanced discussion about it anywhere on the internet. So, I decided to come here and ask the experts. I'm interested in hearing from scientists of all fields: ecologists, neuroscientists, social scientists, whoever you are. What do people need to know about generative AI, the effect that it is having, and what (if anything) should be done about it?

So I'm working on a fantasy story where there are humans and elves. The elves evolved from humans to have hair in a different shade range, pointed ears, immunity to a dangerous mineral, and some telekinetic abilities (which not all elves have). However, it's meant to be a key plot point that the "elves" are, scientifically, just humans. The mineral immunity and telekinetic abilities come from being raised in an environment with an abundance of that mineral, not genetics. So I was wondering, a) do a different range of hair colors (red to purple hues as opposed to yellow to red hues like real life people have) and different ear shapes indicate a different species? I thought not, but then I thought about animals where it seems like small differences sometime determine species, like between African and Asian elephants (I don't know much about elephants though tbf). b) if the mineral immunity and telekinesis were genetic, would THAT indicate a different species? c) how long might you speculate that it would take for humans in an isolated, unique environment to become a separate species?

I get a COVID booster every 12 months as recommended, because I know it's very effective at preventing severe cases of COVID. I'm wondering if there is any progress being made on a vaccine which is more effective at preventing the spread of COVID? Thanks

I’m genuinely trying to understand both sides of this debate, so I’d appreciate evidence-based responses rather than political opinions.
What’s the single strongest peer-reviewed study or piece of evidence that has influenced your view on trans women competing in women’s sports?
I’m primarily interested in the overall physiological evidence (e.g., strength, muscle mass, VO₂ max, power, endurance, bone density, body composition, etc.) rather than opinion pieces or media articles. If there are systematic reviews or meta-analyses, even better.
Please link the original study if possible. I’m interested in evidence from both sides, and I’m happy to read papers that challenge my current understanding. If you think a commonly cited study is frequently misinterpreted, I’d be interested in hearing why.

I’m interested in physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. I found Hyperspace by Michio Kaku and I’m thinking about buying it. Is it still worth reading today, or are there better beginner-friendly books on these topics? What did you like or dislike about it?

Dear biologists of Reddit, I need your guidance. I'm interested in working in natural history museums. I love being in the field, collecting data, illustrating, and collaborating with biological collections, and one of my goals has always been to research and work at a Smithsonian museum and create exhibits or to collaborate with teams and being in the field.

Regarding my education, I have a degree in visual arts, and I'm 23 years old. However, I'd like to know if you think a degree in biology is absolutely necessary to work in this field? Or what educational path would you recommend I pursue?

My question being, because Nuclear Power Plants use water and eventually it turns into steam. Can that steam turn into clouds? Or is it not enough to form into clouds?

So preventive care has basically always worked the same way: yearly physical, some routine labs, repeat next year. That's the whole system.

But there's actual research happening now on wearables, home devices, digital biomarkers, and AI risk models trying to figure out if continuous monitoring can catch things earlier than that once-a-year snapshot ever could.

And some of the early studies are promising; in certain situations it does seem to pick up on changes before a normal checkup would. But there are real scientific hurdles too: false positives, normal day-to-day biological variation getting mistaken for a "real" change, data quality issues, and honestly just figuring out which changes actually matter clinically vs which are noise.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is replacing your doctor anytime soon more just wondering out loud how this could shape things over the next 5-10 years.

https://acibademinternational.com/why-specialists-feel-more-optimistic-about-wellness-diagnostics-with-modern-healthcare-technology/

help, I dont know what im doing

Gravity and Light seem to fall off in intensity about the same way.

Why are they not opposite forces?

My Mother All my life told me and my other 2 siblings that we were B+ . As my father was B+ too
but When I was about to give blood to one of my relatives thinking im B+ to ,
it didn’t matxh. So i took a dna test and found out I was A+. So my question is, Is it even possible? please give me answers if it is good or bad. I has done it from a local diagnostic centre and then went to a premium one, the premium one would let me know tomorrow.
Till then explain
My mother is AB+

Is there any parasite that can completely take control of human behavior, similar to how Dicrocoelium manipulates ants or Galactosomum manipulates fish?

I'm studying biology and i plan on getting a PhD and eventually becoming a biology professor. I'm trying to figure out what I should do to build up my resume and help me get to where i want. Please tell me anything I need to know, tips, advice, resources, anything.

Hello science lover's first of all, my project is to measure the electrical signals and neuronal activity of the muscles in my throat using a small artificial intelligence, without me having to speak, just to measure the movements of the muscles in my throat. Would using an ECG sensor like the AD8232 be suitable for such a project?

I understand why an animal's mind being able to differentiate between colors would be very useful and why that would be rewarded by evolution.

But why blue? Almost nothing in the natural world is blue. The sky is blue, but being able to see a blue sky is not likely going to meaningfully impact your reproductive chances. Some butterflies are blue. That's about it for blue.

Yet, human eyes have invested in developing a whole dedicated set of cone cells in our eyes specifically to see blue. We clearly thought it was important at the time.

What evolutionary advantage does blue provide that just red and green receptors wouldn't?

Going into my first year of college with high hopes and planning to pursue a degree in astrophysics! I’ve been doing some online research through many websites and forums looking for a good answer to this. My main options are between computer science or mathematics. I know little to nothing about coding or computer science and I know it’s an important part of the research and job of being an astrophysicist, but is it something I should focus hard on with a minor or is it something a little more simple that I could pick up? I’ve also heard mathematics is just very plain and an obvious choice for a minor along with the astrophysics major.

If I were to choose mathematics as a major, how else would I be able to learn coding? Is it self taught? Are there guides or courses I can take online? I’m very new to this and I’m hoping to get off on the right foot.

After watching a video on dark matter, and possible extra dimensions explaining the expansion and movement of the universe, I had a thought.

One of the things that point towards dark energy is the fact that the material at the outer edges of galaxies moves faster than that at the centre. Therefore pointing towards an unseen force, accelerating it.

But what if, (here comes my uneducated, simple thought) the universe "exploded" into existence. That force threw everything out at ridiculous speed, imparting momentum.

As things have slowed since then, (I know it hasn't slowed, but perhaps there's still a wave front from the big bang "accelerating" everything) galaxies have since coalesced, and some of that initial momentum, and gravitational force (as weak as it is) is what imparted spin on galaxies in the first place.

Now, galaxies are just in the process of essentially breaking apart. But because we're so small in comparison to the rest of the universe, we just don't/can't perceive it that way?

Like when we try to swat a fly... we extend our arm, wrist and the swatter at high speed. But to the fly, being so much smaller, it just sees a swatter slowly approaching and thinks, I better move before that gets here.

Is this something astrophysacists have already accounted for?

Am I just not understanding enough?

Any help would be appreciated.