Sentences with phrase «predict effects in humans»

Scientists are forced either to experiment on whole animals, which is expensive, raises ethical issues and may not predict effects in humans, or to perform tests on microscopic human cells found in tissue cultures, which have been altered to live forever and bear little relation to actual living, breathing people.

This is not only because tests on laboratory animals can cause much suffering, but also because the relevance of the data they provide for predicting effects in humans or other animals is severely limited by differences among major species.

Not exact matches

But when asked by Sen. Bob Corker (R - TN) if human activity has contributed to climate change, Tillerson said that «the increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect,» and that «our ability to predict that effect is very limited.»

«This study brings into sharp focus the effects on wheat — one of the largest sources of nutrients for humans,» says Irakli Loladze of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, who predicted the negative effects of rising CO2 on micronutrients seven years ago.

In contrast, Kaminski says there was no sign of a «dinner table effect», «which would predict that dogs try and look super-cute when they want something from the humans.»

The findings, if found to hold true in humans, suggest it may be possible to develop a biological marker to predict sensitivity to radiation's effects on the human brain before deployment to deep space.

Studies in the 1960s and 1970s showed that rats and humans who can't predict a negative effect (such as a small shock) end up more frazzled than those who can predict when a zap is coming.

When RNAi therapies weren't delivered to the right tissues, dangerous side effects showed up in humans that weren't predicted through animal models.

«Our work highlights the fact that we need to test the effects of potential endocrine disrupting chemicals in both rat and human cells to be able to accurately predict the risk,» said Professor Habert.

Consequently, in the past 20 years his research has evolved from an early focus on prioritizing the effects that humans have on coral reefs and the role that marine protected areas play in conserving biological diversity and ecological processes, to developing theoretical and simulation models of coral reefs that will help predict and suggest alternatives to reduce detrimental effects, to developing practical means to restore degraded reefs through manipulation of the food web and management.

Very importantly, DDI types predicted by DeepDDI are generated in the form of human - readable sentences as outputs, which describe changes in pharmacological effects and / or the risk of ADEs as a result of the interaction between two drugs in pair.

The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.

Thus, the data from extensive in vivo studies in human subjects show that low - energy sweeteners do not have any of the adverse effects predicted by in vitro, in situ or knockout studies in animals.

Following on from the 2014 Extinction Marathon which presented environmental and human crises facing the world today (co-curated with Gustav Metzger) and the 2015 Transformation Marathon, which proposed ways of identifying and effecting change in the face of increasing complexity, the 2016 Miracle Marathon focused in on ritual, repetition and magical thinking to consider ways in which the imaginary can not only predict, but also play a part in affecting long - term futures.

Humans don't just have to worry about the greenhouse - emissions impacts that get nearly all of the attention, such as the hotly debated and hard - to - predict effects on hurricane activity in the United States.

Elsewhere in this thread, I have predicted that Kevin Trenberth will not focus on the definition of a null hypothesis, but will instead cite climate data as evidence that it is wiser to assume significant human effects, unless proven otherwise, than to assume the lack of these effects.

* * * The evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic, or human - caused, climate change has been mounting since the mid-1950s, when atmospheric models predicted that growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would add to the natural «greenhouse effect» and lead to warming.

Ocean acidification will fry fish populations directly, too, though scientists aren't yet sure how to predict the effects on the stuff we haul out of the ocean to eat; they do know that in acid waters, oysters and mussels will struggle to grow their shells, and that when the pH of human blood drops as much as the oceans» pH has over the past generation, it induces seizures, comas, and sudden death.

The claim that «we can not predict next month's weather in London, so how in the world can we predict the effect of human - made greenhouse gases in 50 years!»

The model will be used to predict both the monthly and the cumulative effects of human activity in the region - all agriculture, transportation, energy, and industry - related decisions - over the next 20 years.

The Drosophila foraging gene human orthologue PRKG1 predicts individual differences in the effects of early adversity on maternal sensitivity.