Fog of War Zhen li et al.
The researchers findings in this study were to find what caused long, prolonged wars where there was no end in sight but also no reward to be gained from it. In order to find an answer, they used a board game which simulated a war in which there were territories to be gained and the gain of each territory produced a number of troops, and the more troops you have, the greater your probability of winning. During the game, they found that players kept mistaking defences as advances towards territory and kept misinterpreting moves. They called this mistake in intentions “fog of war” and attributed it to the reason wars were prolonged (accumulated mistakes in intention). They attributed this to the lack of clear boundaries around territory.
However, there is an issue with the experiment such that real life does not mimic the settings of the board game. In actual war, mistakes in interpretation likely happen a lot less often because boundaries are clear on a map. Additionally, there was no proof that mistakes in intention was what led to prolonged war. It seems there is a problem with the way research is done in social science. Rather than try to mimic real-life situations or do interviews with subjects, they should follow medical science’s example instead and do case studies. They should look at the various examples of prolonged war, see the common pattern, and come up with a hypothesis. Then test the hypothesis by looking for an example where that was not true and see if the result still occurred. I think social science is too caught up with trying to be quantitative because they think that is what it has to be in order to be called science. But I think that is wrong. Science is not supposed to be standardized, which is the point of numbers in the first place. To standardize things so that everyone is on the same page about one specific thing.
Science is just a method of finding out how something works. And qualitative measures is figuring out how something works, the method does not have to be the same or standardized in order for that to happen.
If it were me, I would do some initial research into the topic and find out what commonality there is in a prolonged war. Come up with a prediction, say, shortage in resources (because they fight to get something and there is more reason to fight when you don’t have that something and have nothing else to lose and are desperate to gain). And from there look into wars where there were no shortage in resources and see if they are prolonged. Percentages can be calculated from there.
More efficient photosynthesis from genetically modified Rubisco Ute A. Hoffman et al.
As growing seasons get shorter (hotter temperatures and more droughts), it is more important for more efficient photosynthesis such that plants are able to still grow as large as they do even with shorter growing seasons. One group is trying to genetically modify plants so that they have more efficient rubisco (catalyzes more carbon dioxide and less oxygen so we get less waste byproducts) – an crucial enzyme that helps create sugars- so that photosynthesis would be more efficient.
Their idea was to match plants with variants of DNA that created rubisco with photosynthesis efficiency. And then implant the altered DNA of the most efficient one into a plant. This idea was a good one because it was efficient and was just enough to match the purpose of the experiment, which was to create a plant with more efficient photosynthesis to better utilize the shorter growing season. Experiments with GMO usually fail, however, because the match with DNA to phenotype is still not clear yet with multiple genes usually attributing to a phenotype or some not really having any clear genes that result in a phenotype. I believe this is because they are not taking the bonds between DNA into account. This is because the bonds can affect whether something gets turned into a protein or not (how strong it is) and at each time the bond between DNA is going to be different depending on what molecules are around the DNA and what the DNA molecules around it are bonded to at that time.
There are several ideas as to how to produce a genetically modified organism. One of which is to induce meiosis. Since meiosis typically occurs in areas where there are a certain ratio of ion-gated channels (muscle cells in mammals) and fat cells (nutrient storage sites), perhaps putting haplotypes within one such place would help. I predict this to be because the damage done to the DNA chain by electrons/photons/UV light (which are differently affected by fat cells-by concentrating it-and muscle cells-by emitting it) is just so that the DNA chains get damaged on both sites simultaneously and recombine with another at the same site. Another way to solve the problem might just be to water the plants with a fat-delivered enhancer or transcription agent inside it.
Additionally, we don’t know how well more efficient rubisco will contribute to greater photosynthesis because there may be a cap on how much sugars the plant is able to use. Either way, increasing the efficiency of rubisco the way they did seems to be a good way to increase photosynthesis because more sugars will be created and the more the plant will be able to use.
Natural selection of proteins Sebastian Kaiser et al.
In this research, the scientists looked at the evolution of proteins (antibiotics) within bacteria through recombination of their DNA segments that created modules that put the proteins together into polypeptides. They discovered that a combination of genetic drift, natural selection, and recombination bias selected for the proteins and found that they mostly converged on a select number of proteins through those evolutionary processes.
I found this study particularly fascinating for the fact that DNA combined within bacteria to change what modules are formed and therefore what proteins are formed. It looks as if the modules themselves select for/recognize different proteins to combine them by adding bonds to them. In this case, the researchers were interested in genetically altering the DNA of the modules to change what proteins are created, though I would be interested in using mild protein degradation agents to do the same thing. I imagine these modules catalyze reactions using a lock and key method and by altering the structure slightly of these modules, they would likely start selecting for different components of proteins and combining them at different places. Additionally, by changing the temperature during recombinations so that more DNA breaks, you would get different recombinations rather than the same ones that keep recurring.
I think how bacteria recombine modules has particular significance for how to genetically modify organisms. For instance, in this case, the modules likely recombine bacteria with not other modules, but with other DNA and in places that are interchangeable with other DNA (meaning places where the DNA is similar). This has implications for PCR and genetic modification. This likely has something to do with the bonds that are there. It seems as if each bond is different within the DNA structure of a bacterium such that when two DNA structures with bonds that are similar interact, they form a three way, then a four way temporary bond before switching. I predict it has to do with high electricity in a bacterium cell (compared to a eukaryote which does not typically recombine spontaneously) because the higher amount of electrons in the cell allows for more reactions to happen such that that four way connection actually does happen and lead to a switch. The dipole-dipole interactions are highly variable between DNA molecules (from a strand) such that electrons are able to create constant interactions with them and allow to create and form temporary bonds more often and switch bonds more often.
Psilocybin promotes neuroplasticity Jacob J. Baker et al.
In this study, they found that taking psilocybin promoted the growth and maturation of dendrites towards one another and that you don’t need to experience the hallucinogen effects of the psilocybin in order to experience the benefits of the neuroplasticity due to the psilocybin. In addition, though chronic stress tends to destroy dendrites, psilocybin seems to have a healing effect by increasing the amount of dendrites matured and decreasing the amount of dendrites lost. However, in my opinion, neuroplasticity doesn’t mean anything. I think it is an effect rather than a cause and that we have forgotten the rule “correlation does not mean causation” in this case. In short, I am saying that it doesn’t matter that dendrites grow or anything, it does not affect how we learn.
Our brain cells do not allow us to think or anything. It is the electrons colliding with each other to form memories and returning to our brains through a continuous chain reaction that never ends that allows us to think. The main job of the brain cells is to release neurotransmitters which every cell in our body receives so as to tell the cells in our body what to do (when to divide, when to take up more resources and grow, and to repair themselves, and what genes to express). We know this because, supposedly, our brain cells communicate with each other by releasing neurotransmitters. However, it was never established that neurotransmitters help us think. Brain cells communicate with each other using neurotransmitters. Dopamine and other neurotransmitters, additionally, are often realized as effects of some thinking process.
Furthermore, what does correlate with thinking is the amount of electricity in our brain, and that is the result of electrons. So, the collision of electrons in our brain form slight electricity. And electrons are too small to get controlled by the neurons within the brain. The electrons would just go straight through the cell wall of the spindles that transmit electricity through a domino effect of protons. However, the electrons likely indirectly help by colliding with other chemicals within the cell wall to cause a reaction down the cell that pushes into other chemicals that cause a release in neurotransmitter, that does not result in electricity, so we can say that although electrons reacting with the neurons themselves is an interaction with or cause of neurotransmitter release, it is not the cause of thinking (which is what we claim neuroplasticity to help with). In other words, I am saying that neuroplasticity (dendrites receding and making new connections) has no benefit to us. Rather, the neuroplasticity we see here is just the effect of new electricity occurring due to new brain activity caused by the psilocybin (the hallucinations that they see) attracting the growth of dendrites towards a specific area and the dendrites requiring constant maintenance in order to survive.