Sentences with phrase «as a biologist in»

By the end I was hooked: I knew that I wanted to continue working as a biologist in the realm of international cooperation, contributing to nature conservation and the transfer of knowledge.

Hopkins, who worked as a biologist in Yosemite National Park for several years, conducted the study as a graduate student at Montana State University.

Additionally, I work as a biologist in cancer research, and in my opinion that means I ultimately work for the patients themselves.

Johannes Refisch describes his experience working as a biologist in the realm of international cooperation, contributing to nature conservation and the transfer of knowledge.

Jochen Lempert originally trained as a biologist in the 1980s and began to use photography in the early 1990s to study the natural world.

Not exact matches

«Pop thought organic was the same thing as health food, which in those days didn't necessarily taste very good,» said Nell, a biologist and environmentalist who now runs her own charitable foundation.

«This technology will allow us to paint a whole chromosome and look at it live and really follow it... as it goes through developmental transitions, for example in an embryo,» study co-author Rebecca Heald, a molecular and cell biologist at UC Berkeley, said in a statement.

As molecular biologist Rana Dajani explains in a 2011 Nature editorial, the political and religious environment in most Arab states currently «fails to sustain creativity, curiosity and striking out into the unknown — all of which are essential for science to flourish.»

An experienced biotechnology patent lawyer, Dr. Noonan brings more than 20 years of extensive work as a molecular biologist studying high - technology problems in serving the unique needs of his clients.

Anyone who doubts this need only consider the rhetoric used to attack the University of Alberta's plan to award an honorary degree to renowned biologist and environmentalist David Suzuki, whose views on oilsands extraction have literally been characterized on social media as treasonous and terroristic in the past few days.

Last August, we told you about Laura Deming, a New Zealand native who was home schooled before moving halfway around the world as a 12 - year - old to work alongside Cynthia Kenyon, a renowned molecular biologist who specializes in the genetics of aging.

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

In short, the irreducible complexity of molecular systems is controversial among molecular biologists when it is presented as an idea with philosophical consequences, and tacitly accepted as reality when it remains in the world of innocent facIn short, the irreducible complexity of molecular systems is controversial among molecular biologists when it is presented as an idea with philosophical consequences, and tacitly accepted as reality when it remains in the world of innocent facin the world of innocent fact.

(iii) you are a complete blowhard who has never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because your mommy and daddy taught you some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.

They are much like the physicists of the past who refused to see life as the direction toward which physical, mechanical and chemical transformations were tending, or again like the biologists of old who refused to see in consciousness the direction that life was tending.

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, «the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould's] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

There have been many such changes, 8 so significant, in fact, that one wonders if Darwin must not be regarded, even by the biologists themselves, more as a precursor of developments leading to present - day evolutionary thinking rather than as a continuing historical source of our scientific understanding of man.

Evolutionary biologists (as Artigas notes) prefer to use the term «teleonomy» in this context because for them «teleology» carries the Platonic suggestion of recognizable direction on the part of an intelligence.

Biologists spend a lot of time as undergraduates and graduate students and post-grads and post docs before they could really be considered well educated in the field.

As I point out in Darwin on Trial, molecular biologists even now use the language of intelligent communication (information, libraries, translation) because there is no other way to depict what they are seeing.

Biologists as basically different in their philosophical and biological views as W. H. Thorpe and Jacques Monod agree that the origin of life is a difficult, and thus far intractable and unsolved, problem.

Some philosophers and biologists thought so; in fact, the so - called finalists contended that organic evolution as a whole was designed to bring man into existence.

Only a few biologists have actually lived with animals in their native habitats in order to study their behavior there, and the results are not always recognized as «scientific», since they are not readily repeatable in the fashion required by science.

In a molecule, the degree of self - creation and self - determination may be quite rudimentary, even negligible; a mechanistic molecular biologist might argue that this can be explained (away) as the defective working of totally deterministic systems.

Such instances, for which no convincing scientific explanations have been given, are cited by some Christian biologists as evidence of God's intervention in the process.

In the light of man's unrelenting attack on disease, some biologists believe that development of deadly germs is a betrayal of the human race as well as of the ideals of science; one - hundredth of an ounce of botulism toxin could kill a million people, and its production seems to further neither scientific knowledge nor any peacetime applications.

One of the paradoxes attaching to the human species, a cause of some bitterness among biologists, is that every man comes into the world as defenseless, and as incapable of finding his way single - handed in our civilization, as the new - born Sinanthropus a hundred thousand years ago.

As a biologist I have long been immensely impressed by and beholden to Whitehead's philosophy of organism (Process and Reality), in that it seems to me that he is the first great philosopher who really took trouble to comprehend the biological developments of his time.

She is currently working on an anthology concerning approaches to environmental problems with a biologist and has published an article on Whitehead's metaphysical system as a foundation for environmental ethics in Environmental Ethics 8/3.

The process of synthesis by which azoic elements have reached their present multiplicity and complexity is an evolution, the same process entirely as the biologist traces in the order of living things, and the synthetic chemical compound embodies in itself a complex relativity capable of being expressed in most exact laws, which reflect the evolutionary emergence of its substance as much as do the organs of an animal explained in terms of evolutionary development.

However, the first workers in this field, such as Haldane and Fisher from the theoretical point of view, and biologists such as Timofeef - Ressovsky, Dubinin and others, in practical field investigations, were still thinking mainly in terms of individual genes.

Biologists do not agree about the mechanism of the continual disappearance of phyla in the course of geological time, a process almost as mysterious as that of their formation; but the reality of the phenomenon is indisputable.

As an evolutionary biologist he could see no basis for believing in the mysterious «emergence» of completely novel properties as organisms became more compleAs an evolutionary biologist he could see no basis for believing in the mysterious «emergence» of completely novel properties as organisms became more compleas organisms became more complex.

Evolution was not of major interest to most of these biologists, but insofar as they had a theory of it, it was a theory in terms of mutations of individual genes, carried by individual organisms and submitted to natural selection.

However, in his reply to the invitation he wrote to me, «I shall preserve your letter among my most treasured possessions as the most cordial expression of good will I have ever received from my fellow biologists.»

Henderson concluded that «the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in its very essence as biocentric.»

Richard Dawkins is supposed to be a brilliant evolutionary biologist, but, as I've stated previously, biology has already been tossed into the garbage bin in terms of its relevance to sensible discussion about science and religion.

(iii) you are a complete blowhard who has never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because your mommy and daddy taught you some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.

3At present, for example, the well - entrenched neo-Darwinian hypothesis of «gradualism» (biological evolution occurs slowly, and more or less continuously as the constant interplay of random variations and natural selection over vast periods of time) is confronted with a somewhat more radical and neo-Lamarckian theory of «punctuated equilibrium» favored by Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Peter Williamson, collaborated by fossil discoveries of paleontologist and cultural anthropologist Richard Leakey in Africa.

John Cobb devoted much attention to this topic, and Charles Birch, as an eminent biologist and process thinker, has contributed much by his writings and lectures to the wider acceptance of a process style of thought in the circles of the World Council of Churches.

But no biologist — repeat no biologist — believes that big jumps, such as a horse to a donkey would happen in one generation.

Waddington once told me that he became a developmental biologist as a result of having read all the philosophical works of A. N. Whitehead as an undergraduate in Cambridge University.

I leave it as an open question whether this perspective is suggestive of new hypotheses that might be tested and whether such a view implies any change in the way in which biologists do biology and formulate theories.

But, as Bohm points out, such a position can not stand up to critical analysis, for the molecules studied by biologists in living organisms are constituted of electrons, protons and other such particles, from which it must follow that they too are capable of behaving in ways that can not be described in terms of mechanical concepts.

Miller's remark that the triumph of theory «is evident in the violence and irrationality» of attacks on it repeats the scornful confidence with which Haeckel refers to those (distinguished contemporary physicists and biologists among them) who refused to abandon the «faith of our fathers» as they attacked his new monistic religion.

Bohm's paper indicates that, whether or not biologists are ready to take account of internality in their theoretical formulations, there is at least one physicist who sees this as the way ahead in quantum theory.

Whitehead in this respect as in others provides a rigorous ontological grounding at the microcosmic level for the macrocosmic phenomena studied by biologists.

John J. Reilly («After Darwin,» June / July) is right on the mark in identifying the views of contemporary biologists such as Brian Goodwin as Platonic.

To this I would reply that for a long time now many biologists have readily accepted the possibility, if not the virtual certainty, that purposes in the form of the making of choices between alternative situations may indeed have played an important function as canalising in certain directions the selective forces acting on the stock in question.

All biologists agree that the behavior of organisms as a whole is directive, in the sense that in the course of evolution some at least of it has been modified by selection so as to lead with greater or less certainty towards states which favour the survival and reproduction of the individual.