« Beta-Secretase: Not So Fast? |
Main
| Little, Big »
May 18, 2007
But Enough About You
Posted by Derek
Over at Nature's Sceptical Chymist blog they have a Friday interview feature, and this week you can see them interrogate me. (The blog's name is lifted from Robert Boyle, one that I liked so much that I also wrote it on the front of one of my undergraduate lab notebooks.) Note: I had this post up for a couple of hours attributing the title to Robert Hooke instead. It was early in the morning, really.)
Comments (9)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Blog Housekeeping
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Guidance on Biosimilars
- › Roger Boisjoly and the Management Hat
- › Every Methods Paper Has a Table
- › Buying Back Shares: An Admission of Defeat
- › More Industrial Espionage
- › Tau Spreads On Its Own?
- › Academia and Industry, Suing Each Other
- › Let's Start Off the Meeting With An Ad, OK?
1. Palo on May 18, 2007 11:36 AM writes...
Way to go, Derek, the guy just blamed you for the cost of medications...
Permalink to Comment2. rcyran on May 18, 2007 12:58 PM writes...
Way, way OT
Glad to hear your busy - job search near an end?
Anyway, I have a puzzle that might interest you or some readers. My friend's mixed-breed dog developed a slow growing malignant tumour (hemangiopericytoma). Apparently, this occurs more frequently in mixed-breed dogs than in almost any purebreed. This fact struck me as really odd.
The few hypotheses I could think of don't really stack up
-genetic bottlenecks somehow reduce incidence?
-common heritage of mixes? (although she's part pitbull like most mixes, that breed isn't high risk
- mutts get more viral infections from living on street?
Stats: ttp://cal.vet.upenn.edu/derm2/tables/mhemperi/Cb.htm
Permalink to Comment3. JSinger on May 18, 2007 2:07 PM writes...
rcyran:
Some kind of trans-interaction where different breeds fix on different combinations of alleles that are mutually incompatible?
Unlikely, but the phenomenon you're trying to explain is atypical, so...
Permalink to Comment4. TNC on May 18, 2007 3:06 PM writes...
Steely Dan? I would not have figured you for a classic rock-type.
Permalink to Comment5. KJW on May 18, 2007 3:57 PM writes...
"Steely Dan? I would not have figured you for a classic rock-type."
Ditto!
Permalink to Comment6. Still Scared of Dinoaurs on May 18, 2007 8:12 PM writes...
Yeah, I had you pegged as the Black Sabbath, Vivaldi, Perry Como type, too.
Permalink to Comment7. Still Scared of Dinoaurs on May 18, 2007 8:18 PM writes...
And, re TNC's earlier comment and while we're on the topic of "fun with punctuation" (which we weren't): Do you consider yourself more of the classic-rock type or the classic rock-type?
Jes wunnerin...and remember, they're not mutually exclusive.
Permalink to Comment8. Derek Lowe on May 18, 2007 8:33 PM writes...
Oh, there are a lot of overcerebral types who like old Steely Dan stuff. All those odd chord changes and studio perfectionism, y'know. And as for the comment on drug prices, that was from me. The Nature folks asked for a line or two of biography, and that's what I sent 'em. . .
Permalink to Comment9. BCP on May 18, 2007 11:39 PM writes...
Nice interview, Derek. Interesting that no-one's mentioning Bach -- talk about chord changes; and I'm sure Johann would have been a studio perfectionist himself. I blame the beard/black sweater combo picture for the Black Sabbath associations from SSoD.
I have my fingers crossed for you with regards your future employment. As a pharma guy with (sheesh) 15yrs under my belt, I'm rooting for you whilst seeing my own career flash before my eyes. Given your comments, I would imagine that working for the man is a more difficult proposition for you to swallow these days...
Permalink to Comment