Sentences with phrase «upped by other scientists»

Not exact matches

On the other hand, Biogen has its roots in a Cambridge start - up founded in 1978 by MIT and Harvard scientists working in small, separate labs on then - radical theories, pursuing research dead ends and racking up debt until blockbuster drugs for treating leukemia, MS, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma brought major commercial success.

By 1962, M.I.T. and ARPA scientist J.C.R. Licklide came up with a network for computers to talk to each other in the event of telephony communication getting destroyed.

The research threw up a concept known as homophily — a word invented by social scientists to describe the sociological phenomenon in which people are most drawn to others resembling themselves.

Our Sun is one star out of about 200 billion stars that make up our Milkyway Galaxy which is no more or less special than any other galaxy scientists have discovered hurling through a vast unimaginably large expanse of space that we call the Universe (which is about 99 % empty space by the way).

PDX — It doesn't take a Genius to realize from my statements that i have read things other than the Bible you moron i have spent many hours reading and listening to scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists about their theories on the big bang, i have listened to ideas from the most revered scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists including Hawking and others, and they all admit that there are holes in their theories, that nothing fully explains their big bang theory, the physics doesn't add up let alone the concept, there are plenty of scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will scientists hard at work trying to make the numbers fit and the theory hold weight but if you ask any of them they can not give you the answers and the reason being... there are none, the theory doesn't work, If by the observable laws of Physics, Matter in this Universe can not be created or destroyed, you can only change its state, i.e. solid to liquid, to gas... to energy... There is no explanation for how an entire reality full of Matter can be created out of nothing... Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will Scientists know this... idiots that are atheists and simply would rather NOT believe that their lives and actions they take within their lifespan are being witnessed by an Omnipotent God do not WANT to believe... but Your belief in God does not change whether or not he exists you will be judged.

Riggs» vitamin - based health kick program — for which he is paying a cool $ 5,000 to the same nutritional scientist used by Lawrence Welk — includes a high - protein diet and pills made up of concentrations of crude wheat - germ oil, liver extract and other horrible - sounding items.

Her new book Choke, which is based on her own studies as well as research by other cognitive scientists around the globe, explains why stress causes us to screw up.

A new program aims to launch the careers of diverse life scientists — including women and members of other underrepresented groups — by providing up to 8 years of support, covering both the postdoctoral training and junior faculty stages.

The Polish scientists were looking to send someone to set up monitoring of radioactive contaminants in the upper atmosphere, the legacy of atomic - weapons testing by the Soviet Union, the United States, and other countries in the 1950s.

To show how information builds up and flows among scientific disciplines, Columbia University computer scientist W. Bradford Paley, along with colleagues Kevin Boyack and Dick Klavans, categorized about 800,000 scholarly papers into 776 areas of scientific study (shown as colored circular nodes) based on how often the papers were cited together by other papers.

Aside from hindering the progress of other scientists who could have built on our work we might stuff up our career prospects by getting scooped.

The scientists hope that such investments would also cause positive changes of habits: For example, when parking is made more expensive in downtown areas, accompanied by an improvement of public transport, people might tend to give up driving and use other forms of transportation not just once, but for a longer time.

Without a doubt, the best way to drum up interest in your work (and, by the way, to enhance your career prospects) is to meet other scientists.

«Margery and Ethan never gave up and eventually overcame the skepticism expressed by other scientists.»

By comparing our genetic make - up to the genomes of mice, chimps and a menagerie of other species (rats, chickens, dogs, pufferfish, the microscopic worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and many bacteria), scientists have learned a great deal about how genes evolve over time, and gained insights into human diseases.

The other view of science fiction, figureheaded in retrospect by one Herbert George Wells — «H. G.» to pretty much everyone — was that actual science was best left to actual scientists and science - themed novelists should feel free to make stuff up if it helped uncover the social and philosophical pitfalls in humanity's road ahead.

«The grant will fund setting up infrastructure [for efforts to] connect groups and junior scientists around the country with our group and each other; helping local groups organize meetings and workshops by providing full - time logistical support; and beginning to look through the data that exists about the scientific enterprise [so that] we can... advocate for change,» McDowell tells Science Careers by email.

«For the first time, we have shown that nutrients from ant waste are taken up by the leaves and transported to other places in the tree,» says senior scientist Joachim Offenberg, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, who was in charge of the studies.

But in an analysis just published in The Electricity Journal, scientists say that much of this problem could be addressed with enhanced energy storage technology or by developing «hybrid» systems in which, on a broader geographic scale, one form of renewable energy is ramping up even while the other is declining.

What makes some apes pick up tools and others not has perplexed scientists, but hunger brought on by travel appears to be a big motivator

As tropical forests become increasingly broken up by roads, farm fields, pastures and other developments, corridors of trees provide vital pathways for pollinators and contribute to a rich diversity of plant species, scientists have confirmed.

To get to this point, the sleuths had managed to succeed where other investigators had failed; they had figured out how to successfully extract high - quality DNA from ivory, and they had done so by picking up a few tips from orthodontists and forensic scientists.

One of the studies, by Johns Hopkins University scientists in collaboration with many other groups, turned up unexpected hints that biochemical signals controlling blood pressure may spring from within cells that line blood vessels themselves.

The scientists detailed their best effort to come up with estimates of carbon cycling in three subsets of coastal areas: those dominated by river outlets, others consisting of filtering estuaries and bays, and the continental shelf — any coastal water reaching a depth of about 200 meters or fewer.

As NASA beefs up its search for life elsewhere, it has selected two teams of astronomers, planetary scientists and other specialists, led by the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, to join in a systematic search for Earth - like planets.

But we will reach an and involve much larger groups: Our results will find their way to the courses we teach and we will also build up a team of Other Earths Ambassadors — citizen scientists excited by the search for life on other planets and eager to contriOther Earths Ambassadors — citizen scientists excited by the search for life on other planets and eager to contriother planets and eager to contribute.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major National Academies of Science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.

These claims are backed up by physicians and scientists who explain how GMOs, Roundup and other pesticides can disrupt our biological systems and compromise our health.

On the other hand, the film retains the all - female cast of scientist - explorers from the book, headed up by Natalie Portman and including Gina Rodriguez and Jennifer Jason Leigh.

First up is Dr. Baxter Stockman, a mad scientist portrayed to campy perfection by Tyler Perry (continuing to absolutely slay his supporting performances in other people's movies).

Here, the FICO scientists, the only people who can actually calculate how much your score might go up or down and who are responsible for the credit score most often used by lenders, created some realistic scoring simulations that predict the number of points lost from a missed payment, a maxed - out card, filing for bankruptcy, or any other ding to your credit report.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill - informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thScientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thscientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

It would be a far better use of most scientists and PhDs time who comment on this forum and on others like Open Mind to just STOP wasting YOUR time arguing with idiotic «drunken» deniers, and spend their time much more effectively by scouring the internet for such «events» as «Gas Fracking reviews by Government» etc etc in all nations across the world and use your education and skills and knowledge and actually make a positive difference to AGW / CC action by sending them a FORMAL SUBMISSION or offering up YOUR OPINION and EXPERTISE to be considered in their deliberations.

The fund is designed to help scientists like Professor Michael Mann cope with the legal fees that stack up in fighting attempts by climate - skeptic groups to gain access to private emails and other correspondence through lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests at their public universities.

If not, the only way you can suppose that climate has always changed (which wasn't common knowledge until the last one hundred years) is by agreeing with the research and opinion of many climate scientists and others, who have built up a picture of a constantly changing climate over the history of this planet.

Here's why I see no social or political tipping point: Behind the ups and downs tracked by Gallup, Pew, The Times and others, there's been little evidence of a shift in what political and socials scientists call «issue salience» for global warming — making it the kind of problem citizens bring to the voting booth.

In a field opened up by a handful of individuals who had taken a year or so off from their other work, now hundreds of scientists dedicated their careers, backed up by thousands of assistants and technicians.

In the case of climate change, those measurements after measurements by thousands of scientists for over fifty years are adding up to an extremely compelling and robust argument because they all pretty much agree with each other: we can send people to the moon, and our excess CO2 is changing the climate.

[my words not Kerrys] Now, if Kerry is conceiding that point, one which is being made by other respectable scientists (as seen in this paper), that should clearly make one think about bringing up the models as evidence for AGW.

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK - A history of fire suppression, an invasive fungal plague, and rampant insect infestation fueled by global warming add up to likely extinction for the whitebark pine and serious trouble for the grizzly bear and other species that depend on it, some scientists say.

So, polite and searching «criticism» overt and subtle, of other scientists, organisations and papers, is probably long overdue, but it needs to be backed up by a rational argument, and too often scientists seem afraid of stating a «contrary» position to the status quo.

It's time for the «convinced» to start beefing up their scientific arguments; they are not going to win any arguments by making ad hominem attacks on other scientists.

In the CE governance debate, scientists and activists have begun to pick up on this and are rightly though quietly concerned that transparency initiatives will be used by some to discredit or silence others.

After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund's new climate study, the Washington Post's Eilperin also dug up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a «skeptic» but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article.

And here is the thing; scientists are also not required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn't show up.

If we continue on our current emissions path, we're already headed for warming of up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, which few climate scientists argue would be anything other than catastrophic, because of the drastic rise in sea levels, heat waves, species extinctions and shifts in rainfall that would result.

Moreover, the paper gets its history wrong when it notes that «Total cancer mortality rates did not decline until 1990, 25 years after the identification of the effect of smoking on lung and other cancers...» Well, actually, it was more like 50 years, because the earliest studies to connect smoking and lung cancer were conducted not by NIH - funded scientists but by Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smokinby NIH - funded scientists but by Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smokinby Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smokinBy the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smoking?

Scientists had painfully given up traditions that explained certain geological features by Noah's Flood or other one - time supernatural interventions.

It would be great to hear how these problems are being tackled by proper scientists to clear up any misunderstandings evoked by others..