nycthbris

I love the variety of styles and customizability. It’s really impressive to see some of the designs people have over at reddit.com/r/unixporn . I want to jump in but then realize how much of a time sink it can be.

3D printing any mildly complex tissue is a huge challenge. Let alone getting that printed tissue to function in vivo. Almost all press releases like this one will hype that things are just around the corner. The truth is that bioengineering any organ system is extraordinarily complex, but likely achievable some day in the future.

I haven't read the paper behind the press release, but I'm skeptical of claims about 3D printed tissue. The primary obstacle in the heart is having a perfusable network of vasculature that is simultaneously mechanically & electrically functional. This requires intact extracellular matrix as well as functioning cardiomyocytes & supporting cell types. Maybe that's just my bias though (I'm an author on: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115....).

In other words, you have no downside. Create AGI and you win the game. Don't and you walk away with profit from the ride.

Sounds interesting. Out of curiosity, what company do you work for?

I think you are seriously underestimating the value of first hand experience conducting scientific research. It beats into you a mindset you can't get anywhere else. There are no books or manuals or docs to read and master it. There's only the scientific method. You start with a question, conduct experiments, analyze results, adjust your hypothesis, and repeat the process. You get very comfortable with saying "I don't know". You right at the border of the unknown and trying to navigate further.

Companies are using a PhD as a proxy for having research experience because it's the the only qualification like it out there. It's a poor proxy because not all PhDs are created equal.

Currently decellularized matrix (being stuck to nature's blueprint as you say) is the best substrate for regenerating heart tissue. Artificial matrices we can create (including 3D printing) have nowhere near the complexity of what exists in nature.

That is incorrect. They are not repairing hearts unfit for transplant. They are using human hearts (that are unfit for transplant) as a source of decellularized matrix. That decellularized matrix is then used to re-grow heart tissue using iPS-derived cardiomyocytes (heart cells).

They do. Porcine hearts are a more reliable, consistent, and easily obtainable source for decellularized heart matrix. It's a great tool for experiments to develop the technology. Transplantation however is a different story.

Wow that redstate article is a stretch. Of course people against Trump for president don't want other people to vote for Trump.

This article is highly subjective. Yes NDT can make a whole lot of things boring if you'd rather not know how they work and prefer the mystery of not knowing or taking a different perspective (whether correct or incorrect factually). However the majority of things he describes are things that are no longer mysteries to the existing scientific consensus. They are things we actually didn't know about the world only a few hundred years ago. That is not to say that the mysteries are gone at all. If you dig deep enough into any topic in science (it's not actually as deep as some may think) you ask a question where everyone who studies it says "we don't know the answer". The mystery is still there, it has just moved away from things humans have been able to systematically investigate up to this point in time.

Yeah, IFL science can get kind of annoying and its followers can come off as evangelical but we're human and that's tribalism.

It was funny reading this bit given the point the author is making about a shallowing of intellectualism. The author essentially shares the same thought that the people he's mocking are having:

> ...and you are then supposed to think yes, I knew that, and imagine someone else, someone who didn’t know it already, some idiot, and think: I’m better than that person, I’m so much smarter than everyone else.

Isn't this effectively what Aaron Swartz got in trouble for?

IRobot has a new hackable robot geared towards STEM education. It's basically a stripped down (read: vacuum-less) roomba you can hack on.

www.irobot.com/create

But what about ATP synthase?

What is your opinion on LabVIEW then? I find their graphical interface to programming to be incredibly limited.

I remember the exact moment when I decided to stop listening to Freakonomics Radio. It was when I looked down at my phone and saw the next podcast in my feed was titled "Are Gay Men Really Rich?".

That video is amazing. Thank you.

Don't they talk about this research in the original Freakonomics book?

I had never heard of the Wisdom 2.0 conference before reading this article. It sounds like corporate bible camp.

If you've heard of that conference but not Mindfulness in Plain English, I'd recommend reading the latter. It's free to read online here: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html

Thanks for posting this. I don't think your experience is uncommon. I have actually worked in two separate academic labs and both of the PIs exhibited some sort of sociopathic behavior (lacked empathy, were extremely self-centered, set forth incredibly unreasonable expectations, etc.). I've tried to convince myself that they simply lack good managerial skills but I think something else is afoot. The academic system and funding climate breeds and selects for these sorts of egotistical investigators. They have to work extremely hard to sell their work to funding agencies that are tightening their belts to begin with against a flood of newly minted PhDs/post-docs that have sunk nearly a decade into their own education just to catch the slightest break. It would make sense then that the only types of people who would follow this carrot-on-a-stick model are those who have thoroughly convinced themselves that they are better than all of the others and should be the recipient of all research funding in their field. Couple this with the fact that nobody gets funding for having humility or admitting that they are wrong and you end up with cut throat competition where salesmanship is valued over the skills of a good scientist or student mentor. Not to mention the bias a bright undergrad gets from a professor on whether or not to pursue graduate study.

I'm not surprised you and I have had negative experiences in academia pursuing an advanced degree. I agree that the politics of it all prevent some of the more unfortunate stories from surfacing because who doesn't need another letter of recommendation or reference these days. It's not hard to find the culture of exploitation in academia. I'd really like to know the numbers on what grad school drop outs go on to do. Even more interesting would be how they're doing in the mental health department.

On a more positive note, I appreciate this article for being a collection of advice for someone considering getting a PhD. More resources like this should be made available to young undergrads still on the educational conveyor belt.

I'd think this is because in a bad job market, people are sold the idea that getting an advanced degree will expand their opportunities later. Unfortunately not many people know that obtaining a PhD != easily finding a job afterwards.