What high paid careers are there in the field of medical research? What sort of background would you need to have? How many jobs are there in this area?
Medical research careers?
I am a scientist by profession...it depends on what type of research you are interested in...I have B.S. in Chem %26amp; Bio with a minor in biochem. I then got a MS in Chem. I work in pharmaceutical R%26amp;D and it pays plenty (but remember pay scale differs according to standard of living!)..
Reply:Pharmacist creates medicine and researches it.. Averages about 100K annually.
You need to get a bachelors (4 years), then a Ph.D (Another 4), and then go to a Pharmacist school for a couple years..
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Can medical doctors (M.D) do research?
Hey all,
I was just wondering if medical doctors are involved in medical research, or is it just doctors with a PhD? I plan on going to medical school but would also want to pursue research work in virology, so I was just wondering would i need to go for an M.D./PhD. or could I still do research at say a university with just an M.D?
Hope someone has an answer : )
thanks
Can medical doctors (M.D) do research?
Of course, lots of M.D.s and D.M.D.s and D.D.S.s do research without the PhD, but you would want to spend some time and effort studying your specialty. That time could be put to good use by acquiring additional degrees in virology. Some institutions have a combined M.D./ PhD. program.Contact several universities to find them.
Reply:A medical doctor (MD) can do medical research but most of his or her training is clinical--dealing with pathology of patients. A PhDD. D. is more oriented to statistical research design. You can get a combined M.D./Ph. D. but it is a very long program. Most Md's love dealing with people and may get tired of the research. Psychologists are Ph.D's and help people with emotional problems. There is a new degree, Psy.D. which is a counseling degree. Don't limit yourself to just medicine.
A great field now is bio-statistics (PhDD) that deals with numbers and how disease develops in populations. There is always public health degrees, D.Ph. dealing with epidemiology (disease upon populations). Get a clear of what you want to do by writing your top 10 goals then rate them as to importance. Writing things down is a "must".
Reply:Sure, MD's may want to try a certain regimen for a certain disorder and they keep track of their patients and success/failure.
Reply:Yes,
MDs, PHDs and ODs as well, All do researh.
Reply:All sorts of people are involved in research, from bachelor degree holding lab assistants to PhD experimental design professionals. It would really depend on what aspect of research you are interested in.
Reply:Most kind of Dr.'s can do research. If you are a Ph.d. in Philosophy and work at a University, you are expected to do research. Yes, MD's regularly do research, if that is the path they have chosen.
Reply:MDs can do research all the same.
I was just wondering if medical doctors are involved in medical research, or is it just doctors with a PhD? I plan on going to medical school but would also want to pursue research work in virology, so I was just wondering would i need to go for an M.D./PhD. or could I still do research at say a university with just an M.D?
Hope someone has an answer : )
thanks
Can medical doctors (M.D) do research?
Of course, lots of M.D.s and D.M.D.s and D.D.S.s do research without the PhD, but you would want to spend some time and effort studying your specialty. That time could be put to good use by acquiring additional degrees in virology. Some institutions have a combined M.D./ PhD. program.Contact several universities to find them.
Reply:A medical doctor (MD) can do medical research but most of his or her training is clinical--dealing with pathology of patients. A PhDD. D. is more oriented to statistical research design. You can get a combined M.D./Ph. D. but it is a very long program. Most Md's love dealing with people and may get tired of the research. Psychologists are Ph.D's and help people with emotional problems. There is a new degree, Psy.D. which is a counseling degree. Don't limit yourself to just medicine.
A great field now is bio-statistics (PhDD) that deals with numbers and how disease develops in populations. There is always public health degrees, D.Ph. dealing with epidemiology (disease upon populations). Get a clear of what you want to do by writing your top 10 goals then rate them as to importance. Writing things down is a "must".
Reply:Sure, MD's may want to try a certain regimen for a certain disorder and they keep track of their patients and success/failure.
Reply:Yes,
MDs, PHDs and ODs as well, All do researh.
Reply:All sorts of people are involved in research, from bachelor degree holding lab assistants to PhD experimental design professionals. It would really depend on what aspect of research you are interested in.
Reply:Most kind of Dr.'s can do research. If you are a Ph.d. in Philosophy and work at a University, you are expected to do research. Yes, MD's regularly do research, if that is the path they have chosen.
Reply:MDs can do research all the same.
Can i do medical research by associating with some university (especially usa based)online ?
I want to get admission in pg in some usa university through usmle- doing research may make it easy for me
Can i do medical research by associating with some university (especially usa based)online ?
As an individual, likely no. As an institution, some coop on like research is possible, but not something you do in two days.
broken teeth
Can i do medical research by associating with some university (especially usa based)online ?
As an individual, likely no. As an institution, some coop on like research is possible, but not something you do in two days.
broken teeth
Any ideas of medical researches that should no longer be persued?
What medical researches do you guys think we should no longer go after?
Please give me a list, and a sentence as to why.
Thank you!!
Any ideas of medical researches that should no longer be persued?
stem cell...im catholic, and they tell me im supposed to be against it
Reply:If there's an illness with no cure, then there's no reason to stop trying to find a cure! That's what medical research is all about!
Even if there's a cure, there's always way to improve that medication. The least side effects, the better a medicine is!
Nonetheless, if any medical research breaks ethical rules, it has to stop or at least be put on hold until it's proven to be ethically correct. Stem cell research is being highly debated. Both sides have strong and valid arguments; that's why I have no taken any position about it.
Reply:bird flu cure, what a waste of money, but im all for cloning, i cant wait to buy me a new pamela anderson!
Reply:no
Reply:Cloning. There are plenty of idiots on this planet as it is.
Please give me a list, and a sentence as to why.
Thank you!!
Any ideas of medical researches that should no longer be persued?
stem cell...im catholic, and they tell me im supposed to be against it
Reply:If there's an illness with no cure, then there's no reason to stop trying to find a cure! That's what medical research is all about!
Even if there's a cure, there's always way to improve that medication. The least side effects, the better a medicine is!
Nonetheless, if any medical research breaks ethical rules, it has to stop or at least be put on hold until it's proven to be ethically correct. Stem cell research is being highly debated. Both sides have strong and valid arguments; that's why I have no taken any position about it.
Reply:bird flu cure, what a waste of money, but im all for cloning, i cant wait to buy me a new pamela anderson!
Reply:no
Reply:Cloning. There are plenty of idiots on this planet as it is.
Project n h. economics.can you teach me how to make a research regarding common medical practices?
this is my project in health economics and my teacher wants me to make a research regarding the common medical practices. i know a bit of it but i know that two heads is better than one. thanxs.
Project n h. economics.can you teach me how to make a research regarding common medical practices?
Although assumptions of textbook models of economic markets apply reasonably well to health care markets, there are important deviations. Insurance markets rely on risk pools, in which relatively healthy enrollees subsidize the care of the rest. Insurers must cope with "adverse selection" which occurs when they are unable to fully predict the medical expenses of enrollees; adverse selection can destroy the risk pool. Features of insurance markets, such as group purchases and preexisting condition exclusions are meant to cope with adverse selection.
look at these websites
Project n h. economics.can you teach me how to make a research regarding common medical practices?
Although assumptions of textbook models of economic markets apply reasonably well to health care markets, there are important deviations. Insurance markets rely on risk pools, in which relatively healthy enrollees subsidize the care of the rest. Insurers must cope with "adverse selection" which occurs when they are unable to fully predict the medical expenses of enrollees; adverse selection can destroy the risk pool. Features of insurance markets, such as group purchases and preexisting condition exclusions are meant to cope with adverse selection.
look at these websites
After reading the brief description, do you___ medical research that uses stem cells from embryos?
Embryonic stem cells are special cells that are capable of developing into every type of cell in the human body. This process destroys the embryos. These stem cells reproduce on their own, which makes a 'line' of stem cells that researchers can use. Researchers believe that these stem cells will eventually be able to cure many serious diseases and damaged organs.
After reading the brief description, do you___ medical research that uses stem cells from embryos?
I FULLY SUPPORT medical stem cell research in all forms shapes, sizes and costs.
Keeping in mind there are too many major diseases that have not been eradicated in the last 100 years:
Status quo means doing nothing. WHY settle for that??
Reply:Support. (with limits)
After reading the brief description, do you___ medical research that uses stem cells from embryos?
I FULLY SUPPORT medical stem cell research in all forms shapes, sizes and costs.
Keeping in mind there are too many major diseases that have not been eradicated in the last 100 years:
Status quo means doing nothing. WHY settle for that??
Reply:Support. (with limits)
IS there any paid medical research in toledo, oh?
i am also looking for a website where i acn find these kinds of research. thnx......
IS there any paid medical research in toledo, oh?
University of Toledo Medical Center. University medical centers generally do research, along with practical applications.
canine teeth
IS there any paid medical research in toledo, oh?
University of Toledo Medical Center. University medical centers generally do research, along with practical applications.
canine teeth
Do you get a degree in medicine in order to do medical, genetic, and biotech research?
Or do you major in something else?
Do you get a degree in medicine in order to do medical, genetic, and biotech research?
M.D., Ph.D., and PharmD. are all the prefered degrees for doing different types of medical related research.
The Ph.D. would be in an area that is related to what you want to do: Biomedical sciences, genetics, cell biology, etc.
Reply:Not necessarily. I have a family member who does genetic/biotech research, and his degree is a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, not medicine.
If you're looking for an undergrad major, I think his bachelor's degree was Cell Biology, but that level wouldn't have been enough for the job without the Ph.D.
Reply:No You can have a degree in Engineering, Physics Applied Science. etc.
Nanoscience is a research discipline where chemistry, physics, biology, biomedical engineering, and other disciplines come together to discover new phenomena at the nanometer and molecular scale.
http://www.nanoscience.ucf.edu/academics...
You can major in your chosen area, as well but you can work in conjunct with other field
Reply:yes you do
Reply:you do if you want to do more than prep test and clean up after test animals
Do you get a degree in medicine in order to do medical, genetic, and biotech research?
M.D., Ph.D., and PharmD. are all the prefered degrees for doing different types of medical related research.
The Ph.D. would be in an area that is related to what you want to do: Biomedical sciences, genetics, cell biology, etc.
Reply:Not necessarily. I have a family member who does genetic/biotech research, and his degree is a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, not medicine.
If you're looking for an undergrad major, I think his bachelor's degree was Cell Biology, but that level wouldn't have been enough for the job without the Ph.D.
Reply:No You can have a degree in Engineering, Physics Applied Science. etc.
Nanoscience is a research discipline where chemistry, physics, biology, biomedical engineering, and other disciplines come together to discover new phenomena at the nanometer and molecular scale.
http://www.nanoscience.ucf.edu/academics...
You can major in your chosen area, as well but you can work in conjunct with other field
Reply:yes you do
Reply:you do if you want to do more than prep test and clean up after test animals
I want to make medical research and i have good idea need more study?
go pursue it. you may to do the study on your own and then write proposal to present it to other companies.
Should the medical industry research effects of 'pot', before they blame everything on it?
I feel not enough research is done into this...i smoked all the way through 3 pregnancies, 2 of my kids are perfectly fine, and my last child has autism...of course they're blaming the 'pot', but my arguement is....why did it not affect the others? I personally think drs are too quick to judge without knowing what they're actually talking about?
Should the medical industry research effects of 'pot', before they blame everything on it?
I wouldnt have put it down the pot smoking personally, i work with autistic children ... u know u are gonna get soooo many put downs for this one ... I hope everything all works out for your son tho... good luck ...
Reply:No-one can blame pot for autism!! That's just not right. Some people are just sadly unfortunate with their children ending up with autism, you have my sympathy but I know someone who smokes pot and their child has autism, the child couldn't be happier and nicer!! No-one blamed smoking pot for that. Don't let it get you down, your child can still have a normal life. Ive seen it happen!
As for research, the only bad thing I see about smoking pot is that it gets people depressed, lose their libido and have really bad mood swings when not on it. It does seem to age them too. Using it for medical purposes have my vote.
I'm not saying that smoking anything or taking drugs of any kind should be excused esp since you were pregnant. Ok you should have thought of the baby's health first. But your question is 'is pot to blame'.
Ignore your Docs tell them you just want help and support to bring up your child because you are entitled to it.
Reply:first things first... as any couple get older, the chances of an abnormality in the child is increased... basically the older you are, the shorter the odds get... regardless. add to the alcohol tobacco and drug abuse...and the odds have get stacked up... that a logical progression.
however. there is no causal link between toking and such abnormalities... for your quacks, its a convenient stick to beat you with... its may have no connection whatsoever, but htey feel morally obligated to berate you for your decision... they DON'T KNOW what causes autism, half the time they cant even diagnose it correctly...
and at least your pot is natural, unlike the gazillions of gallons of alcohol the hypocrites consume... and there is a defined link between alcohol and poorly squids, same with tobacco... but no proof whatsover that adding a bit of weed to the tobacco is a defining causal factor in autism.
Reply:You just don't get it, do you?
None of these things have ever happened due to random chance.
It is ALWAYS the mother's fault.
Sheesh! How could you have three children and not realise it's ALL because you were a BAD GIRL?
If your child develops teen-age acne, for example, it's likely because you didn't wash your produce enough while pregnant. Similarly, taking a Tylenol for a headache while pregnant means you are a bad mother, and thus the cause of all your child's misery. Etc, etc...
Edited to add: perhaps you are going about things the wrong way after all. Here's a little tidbit about giving autistic kids pot brownies:
http://www.autismwebsite.com/arri/v162/p...
Share, Mom!
And -- you're right; the doctors are a little too quick on the draw sometimes. Which see all the utter rubbish fall-out of the "Even one drink can cause fetal alcohol syndrome!!" idea. No, it can't. But try telling people here that...
Enough with the thumbs-down, please. I'm not saying "Hey, that's great! Good for you for being stoned!" Just pointing out that, yes, it might not be to blame for autism.
It's also important to keep in mind that marijuana has a much better safety record than many modern medicines. I use an asthma inhaler daily; 'effects on the fetus unknown,' etc. Not ideal.
Still, I suppose it's important to take for granted that the "u should have ur tubes tied" crowd had a perfect, risk-free fantasy pregnancy. And certainly never subjected themselves to any potentially harmful interventions, etc. Why not take out your wrath on the "I'm 37 weeks, how can I induce?" crowd?
Reply:I suppose doctors are quick to blame something like this on pot because not enough research has been done, after all I can't see it being easy to gain enough research in the matter.
You shouldn't be so quick though in thinking that they are wrong, it sounds like you're in denial. You may have to come to terms with the fact that smoking pot through out your pregnancy may well have contributed to your childs autism. As for your other children having not been effected, how old are they?? It might be that they suffer with depression further along down the line in which you smoking pot can definitely be a factor, you just don't know what can arise at any moment.
Do you still smoke around them? Have you tried to stop?
Reply:My brother and his wife both smoked marijuana while she was pregnant with the first and second child. Because both children had learning difficulties and psychological attachment problems they both felt guilt and much sorrow and both stopped marijuana. They, themselves, are the ones that felt the "pot" was a factor. Also, both are college graduates, he in computer science, and she in education. Both are public education teachers holding Master Degrees. They didn't do any harder drugs or alcohol so that was not an issue in the big picture. Years later, a third child was born. That child didn't have and learning difficulties and is a socialable young man. All three children are adults with the youngest I mentioned being 21-years old now. The oldest still has problems and struggles everyday. The second seemed less affected and went on to college. The third and last is in the Air Force currently. My bottom line to your question is.... Yes, I think it may have played a role in my two nephews and niece. It is a tough call to make but I truly believe there was a strong connection.
Also, the quality of the marijuana and what it may or may not have had in it beyond plain or "clean" marijuana is a factor. Marijuana is often times "cut" with other drugs. Hashish is a common additive much to many users surprise.
Reply:People please remeber that when you are pregnant there is another life inside of you!! There is no definte answer for smoking popt or cigs during pregnancy, it can't be absolutley proven that either of these things harm your child, but it can also not been proven that they HELP your child in any way. Why take the chance? But that is beside the point you know have a child with autism wether its from the pot or not, you need to do some research and find the best pediatrician who is not going to base your childs care on wether or not pot caused it. The early treatment is given to a child with autism the more functionable they will be in later years. Just so you know the facts look up the odds on a child being born with autism in the United States; 1in 105 births results in autism. I don't think that they are all attributed to pot, but lets not take the chance with our children. Also unless you are growing the pot yourself you have no idea what they may have put in or fertilized it with. My suggestion is if you are going to smoke it you need to grow it.!
Reply:You are right...doctors accuse any malfunction on pot. If your child had come out with six toes, then it's pot's fault. Or if they'd come out deaf, it's pot's fault. It does get ridiculous. I've heard doctors claim knowledge of pot's effects when it was so obvious that they knew nothing about it. (For example, a doctor was once telling me about how pot makes you hallucinate. Haha)
I live in a place called Stone County....a lot of people call it "Stoned County" b/c of the abundant use of pot here. Needless to say, I know dozens of women who've smoked through they're pregnancies and all had normal children. It's not right to blame any defect on you smoking...you could have not smoked and had a very stressful pregnancy and still had an autistic baby.
Don't buy into the hype...they're just trying to drag you down b/c they don't understand it. There hasn't been enough medical research to advocate blaming you for the autism. It's just not right.
Reply:Do us all a favor and STOP HAVING CHILDREN. If you used pot while you were pregnant, you're using now.
I hope someone reports you and I hope DCF takes your kids away. You don't deserve them. Having kids, and taking care of them while you're pregnant as well as afterwards is a priviledge not a right. You obviously can't appreciate that.
Reply:You have GOT to be kidding me.
Reply:Some are effected others are not. The chemicals in pot and other substances that are abused, build up in your system over time.
There are many factors that can lead to one child being effected and the other not. Not every child is effected, but such a large number are, that all drugs and cigarettes, and even OTC medications have been deemed hazardous and detrimental to the unborn.
Low birth weight, poor neurological development inutero and premature birth have all been proven to cause autisim in children. While the pot itself might not have effected the child, its effects on your body are enough to cause a chain of events that harms the baby.
You have certainly shown yourself to be a very selfish woman indeed, risking the welfare and long term health of your children simply so you can continue on with an addiction.
I pity your babies.
Reply:well, i think it is a very irresponsible thing to smoke pot during pregnancy, just like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. like your kids, some may be perfectly healthy, but some may not, so why take the chance? thats one thing that makes me really mad is to see pregnant women smoking or drinking, it's just selfish and stupid to take that chance with a poor unborn child. and like you said, if you think not enough research has been done, why would you want to do something that you dont know what the effect is going to be?
i was a pot smoker myself and quit when we decided to start trying to have a baby. i am now 30 weeks pregnant and my husband and i have both not smoked since july 2006.
Reply:Why do you feel the need to smoke it in the first place? Its sad that your children didn't mean more to you than the pot. During pregnancy I don't even drink caffeine, because I think its best for my kid. I'm sorry your kid was diagnosed with it, but quit harping on doctors. They are just as human (and possible of making mistakes). In that case, you are both at fault.
Reply:silly medical industry - why didn't they listen to an idiot like you rather than all those stupid doctors etc???
stop trying to justify your actions by blaming others. drug taking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. you are at risk of doing long term damage to your children. you mentioned that baby no.3 was placed in the special care baby unit - they don't do this for autism so there were obviously problems from birth - autism is only detected later.
you are living in a fantasy world. grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions.
Reply:Why would you want to even take a chance? Wow... I really hope Child Protective Services never hears about it for your sake, you will lose all you kids.
Reply:I think you are too quick to judge the medical profession!!!!!
Reply:You're an idiot.
You questioning the judgement of doctors with advanced medical degrees when you're not smart enough to stop smoking pot while pregnant.
Even if you think pot is a non-harmful drug and should be legalized...that doesn't mean you should be getting stoned while pregnant. You can be the world's biggest advocate of pot smoking all you want...but being pregnant is completely different situation. There is another life inside of you to think of. If you want to smoke, then wait until you are not pregnant. End of story.
Whether it caused the autism or not..it could still lead to other problems. People defend pot to the death...I don't get it...why not defend the baby growing inside of the mother?
Reply:We are doing quite a lot of work on it, we are seeing more and more people with quite serious mental health problems from usage.
With regard to your children, you don't know what the long term effects are going to be, they may develop problems in later life, I hope I am wrong.
But there is a lot of evidence to show that it is not safe, look at Bob Marley his Brain was riddled with tumours all cancerous.
Look at E's everyone said they are very safe, now we are treating lots of users for serious depression.
Smoking causes low birth weight in some babies that's a fact, you my be lucky but is it worth risking your child's future health for you own pleasure.
My personal opinion is that most drug addicts are selfish, you have just confirmed my opinion.
By all means go ahead and damage your own Brain but you children have no say in the matter, you are gambling with their future mental health.
Reply:Research has been done for years upon years...the research is not new. You were lucky with the first two.
Reply:Yes and i think they have enough research to it. Generally if you inhale smoke directly from burning its bad because you inhale carbon monoxide and other chemicals to your body, time will tell how smokers gonna affect on this on the future.
Reply:i happen to know a family where the mother is an alcoholic. Out of the 4 children, 2 were premature, and one was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. The mom drank through all of her pregnancies, but only the second child has FAS. Sometimes, it affects the kids, sometimes it doesnt show.
Why would you take that risk with your children??? Do you realize that if you are smoking through your pregnancies you are risking the children already born by neglecting them? And do not tell me that you didnt do it around them, because even if you didnt, you are impaired for a period of time following your smoking session. You can't care for your children if you are impaired. Stop having kids and take care of the ones you have.
Should the medical industry research effects of 'pot', before they blame everything on it?
I wouldnt have put it down the pot smoking personally, i work with autistic children ... u know u are gonna get soooo many put downs for this one ... I hope everything all works out for your son tho... good luck ...
Reply:No-one can blame pot for autism!! That's just not right. Some people are just sadly unfortunate with their children ending up with autism, you have my sympathy but I know someone who smokes pot and their child has autism, the child couldn't be happier and nicer!! No-one blamed smoking pot for that. Don't let it get you down, your child can still have a normal life. Ive seen it happen!
As for research, the only bad thing I see about smoking pot is that it gets people depressed, lose their libido and have really bad mood swings when not on it. It does seem to age them too. Using it for medical purposes have my vote.
I'm not saying that smoking anything or taking drugs of any kind should be excused esp since you were pregnant. Ok you should have thought of the baby's health first. But your question is 'is pot to blame'.
Ignore your Docs tell them you just want help and support to bring up your child because you are entitled to it.
Reply:first things first... as any couple get older, the chances of an abnormality in the child is increased... basically the older you are, the shorter the odds get... regardless. add to the alcohol tobacco and drug abuse...and the odds have get stacked up... that a logical progression.
however. there is no causal link between toking and such abnormalities... for your quacks, its a convenient stick to beat you with... its may have no connection whatsoever, but htey feel morally obligated to berate you for your decision... they DON'T KNOW what causes autism, half the time they cant even diagnose it correctly...
and at least your pot is natural, unlike the gazillions of gallons of alcohol the hypocrites consume... and there is a defined link between alcohol and poorly squids, same with tobacco... but no proof whatsover that adding a bit of weed to the tobacco is a defining causal factor in autism.
Reply:You just don't get it, do you?
None of these things have ever happened due to random chance.
It is ALWAYS the mother's fault.
Sheesh! How could you have three children and not realise it's ALL because you were a BAD GIRL?
If your child develops teen-age acne, for example, it's likely because you didn't wash your produce enough while pregnant. Similarly, taking a Tylenol for a headache while pregnant means you are a bad mother, and thus the cause of all your child's misery. Etc, etc...
Edited to add: perhaps you are going about things the wrong way after all. Here's a little tidbit about giving autistic kids pot brownies:
http://www.autismwebsite.com/arri/v162/p...
Share, Mom!
And -- you're right; the doctors are a little too quick on the draw sometimes. Which see all the utter rubbish fall-out of the "Even one drink can cause fetal alcohol syndrome!!" idea. No, it can't. But try telling people here that...
Enough with the thumbs-down, please. I'm not saying "Hey, that's great! Good for you for being stoned!" Just pointing out that, yes, it might not be to blame for autism.
It's also important to keep in mind that marijuana has a much better safety record than many modern medicines. I use an asthma inhaler daily; 'effects on the fetus unknown,' etc. Not ideal.
Still, I suppose it's important to take for granted that the "u should have ur tubes tied" crowd had a perfect, risk-free fantasy pregnancy. And certainly never subjected themselves to any potentially harmful interventions, etc. Why not take out your wrath on the "I'm 37 weeks, how can I induce?" crowd?
Reply:I suppose doctors are quick to blame something like this on pot because not enough research has been done, after all I can't see it being easy to gain enough research in the matter.
You shouldn't be so quick though in thinking that they are wrong, it sounds like you're in denial. You may have to come to terms with the fact that smoking pot through out your pregnancy may well have contributed to your childs autism. As for your other children having not been effected, how old are they?? It might be that they suffer with depression further along down the line in which you smoking pot can definitely be a factor, you just don't know what can arise at any moment.
Do you still smoke around them? Have you tried to stop?
Reply:My brother and his wife both smoked marijuana while she was pregnant with the first and second child. Because both children had learning difficulties and psychological attachment problems they both felt guilt and much sorrow and both stopped marijuana. They, themselves, are the ones that felt the "pot" was a factor. Also, both are college graduates, he in computer science, and she in education. Both are public education teachers holding Master Degrees. They didn't do any harder drugs or alcohol so that was not an issue in the big picture. Years later, a third child was born. That child didn't have and learning difficulties and is a socialable young man. All three children are adults with the youngest I mentioned being 21-years old now. The oldest still has problems and struggles everyday. The second seemed less affected and went on to college. The third and last is in the Air Force currently. My bottom line to your question is.... Yes, I think it may have played a role in my two nephews and niece. It is a tough call to make but I truly believe there was a strong connection.
Also, the quality of the marijuana and what it may or may not have had in it beyond plain or "clean" marijuana is a factor. Marijuana is often times "cut" with other drugs. Hashish is a common additive much to many users surprise.
Reply:People please remeber that when you are pregnant there is another life inside of you!! There is no definte answer for smoking popt or cigs during pregnancy, it can't be absolutley proven that either of these things harm your child, but it can also not been proven that they HELP your child in any way. Why take the chance? But that is beside the point you know have a child with autism wether its from the pot or not, you need to do some research and find the best pediatrician who is not going to base your childs care on wether or not pot caused it. The early treatment is given to a child with autism the more functionable they will be in later years. Just so you know the facts look up the odds on a child being born with autism in the United States; 1in 105 births results in autism. I don't think that they are all attributed to pot, but lets not take the chance with our children. Also unless you are growing the pot yourself you have no idea what they may have put in or fertilized it with. My suggestion is if you are going to smoke it you need to grow it.!
Reply:You are right...doctors accuse any malfunction on pot. If your child had come out with six toes, then it's pot's fault. Or if they'd come out deaf, it's pot's fault. It does get ridiculous. I've heard doctors claim knowledge of pot's effects when it was so obvious that they knew nothing about it. (For example, a doctor was once telling me about how pot makes you hallucinate. Haha)
I live in a place called Stone County....a lot of people call it "Stoned County" b/c of the abundant use of pot here. Needless to say, I know dozens of women who've smoked through they're pregnancies and all had normal children. It's not right to blame any defect on you smoking...you could have not smoked and had a very stressful pregnancy and still had an autistic baby.
Don't buy into the hype...they're just trying to drag you down b/c they don't understand it. There hasn't been enough medical research to advocate blaming you for the autism. It's just not right.
Reply:Do us all a favor and STOP HAVING CHILDREN. If you used pot while you were pregnant, you're using now.
I hope someone reports you and I hope DCF takes your kids away. You don't deserve them. Having kids, and taking care of them while you're pregnant as well as afterwards is a priviledge not a right. You obviously can't appreciate that.
Reply:You have GOT to be kidding me.
Reply:Some are effected others are not. The chemicals in pot and other substances that are abused, build up in your system over time.
There are many factors that can lead to one child being effected and the other not. Not every child is effected, but such a large number are, that all drugs and cigarettes, and even OTC medications have been deemed hazardous and detrimental to the unborn.
Low birth weight, poor neurological development inutero and premature birth have all been proven to cause autisim in children. While the pot itself might not have effected the child, its effects on your body are enough to cause a chain of events that harms the baby.
You have certainly shown yourself to be a very selfish woman indeed, risking the welfare and long term health of your children simply so you can continue on with an addiction.
I pity your babies.
Reply:well, i think it is a very irresponsible thing to smoke pot during pregnancy, just like smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. like your kids, some may be perfectly healthy, but some may not, so why take the chance? thats one thing that makes me really mad is to see pregnant women smoking or drinking, it's just selfish and stupid to take that chance with a poor unborn child. and like you said, if you think not enough research has been done, why would you want to do something that you dont know what the effect is going to be?
i was a pot smoker myself and quit when we decided to start trying to have a baby. i am now 30 weeks pregnant and my husband and i have both not smoked since july 2006.
Reply:Why do you feel the need to smoke it in the first place? Its sad that your children didn't mean more to you than the pot. During pregnancy I don't even drink caffeine, because I think its best for my kid. I'm sorry your kid was diagnosed with it, but quit harping on doctors. They are just as human (and possible of making mistakes). In that case, you are both at fault.
Reply:silly medical industry - why didn't they listen to an idiot like you rather than all those stupid doctors etc???
stop trying to justify your actions by blaming others. drug taking and drinking during pregnancy is dangerous. you are at risk of doing long term damage to your children. you mentioned that baby no.3 was placed in the special care baby unit - they don't do this for autism so there were obviously problems from birth - autism is only detected later.
you are living in a fantasy world. grow up and start taking responsibility for your actions.
Reply:Why would you want to even take a chance? Wow... I really hope Child Protective Services never hears about it for your sake, you will lose all you kids.
Reply:I think you are too quick to judge the medical profession!!!!!
Reply:You're an idiot.
You questioning the judgement of doctors with advanced medical degrees when you're not smart enough to stop smoking pot while pregnant.
Even if you think pot is a non-harmful drug and should be legalized...that doesn't mean you should be getting stoned while pregnant. You can be the world's biggest advocate of pot smoking all you want...but being pregnant is completely different situation. There is another life inside of you to think of. If you want to smoke, then wait until you are not pregnant. End of story.
Whether it caused the autism or not..it could still lead to other problems. People defend pot to the death...I don't get it...why not defend the baby growing inside of the mother?
Reply:We are doing quite a lot of work on it, we are seeing more and more people with quite serious mental health problems from usage.
With regard to your children, you don't know what the long term effects are going to be, they may develop problems in later life, I hope I am wrong.
But there is a lot of evidence to show that it is not safe, look at Bob Marley his Brain was riddled with tumours all cancerous.
Look at E's everyone said they are very safe, now we are treating lots of users for serious depression.
Smoking causes low birth weight in some babies that's a fact, you my be lucky but is it worth risking your child's future health for you own pleasure.
My personal opinion is that most drug addicts are selfish, you have just confirmed my opinion.
By all means go ahead and damage your own Brain but you children have no say in the matter, you are gambling with their future mental health.
Reply:Research has been done for years upon years...the research is not new. You were lucky with the first two.
Reply:Yes and i think they have enough research to it. Generally if you inhale smoke directly from burning its bad because you inhale carbon monoxide and other chemicals to your body, time will tell how smokers gonna affect on this on the future.
Reply:i happen to know a family where the mother is an alcoholic. Out of the 4 children, 2 were premature, and one was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. The mom drank through all of her pregnancies, but only the second child has FAS. Sometimes, it affects the kids, sometimes it doesnt show.
Why would you take that risk with your children??? Do you realize that if you are smoking through your pregnancies you are risking the children already born by neglecting them? And do not tell me that you didnt do it around them, because even if you didnt, you are impaired for a period of time following your smoking session. You can't care for your children if you are impaired. Stop having kids and take care of the ones you have.
Can a nurse (RN) be involved in medical or pharmaceutical research rather than patient care?
My daughter wants to study infectous diseases, do drug research, etc. and several people have told her to get her RN. She doesn't want to work with patients however. Do you agree that nursing can be an effective way to enter the research field?
Can a nurse (RN) be involved in medical or pharmaceutical research rather than patient care?
From what I read your daughter should inquire about pharmaceutical studies, Which is what I'm currently doing.. Even though she has to collect data on patients involved in drug researches it will not be as direct as a RN or Medical Doctor.
Reply:It would definitely help to get in at the ground level of nursing, medicine or pharmacy, if you want to get involved in any area of the health care disiciplines. You have to get into the lingo of the primary focus of your research interests.
Reply:Just as a layperson, I don't know that RN would be the right route for your daughter for the mere fact that she does not want to work with patients. Nursing students do a lot of clinicals, fieldwork in healthcare facilities and most, if not all, of their hands-on experience is in direct patient care. The suggestion was probably due to those with a nursing degree seemingly have a wide range of job areas to choose from (or that was how it used to be :) Perhaps she can look into getting a degree in biology, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, public health/epidemiology. I was, however, under the impression that those that work in research have at least a master's degree if not a doctoral degree.
Reply:nursing is a great field and is not limited to patient care. have your daughter speak to a counselor at her local community college for more info.
human teeth
Can a nurse (RN) be involved in medical or pharmaceutical research rather than patient care?
From what I read your daughter should inquire about pharmaceutical studies, Which is what I'm currently doing.. Even though she has to collect data on patients involved in drug researches it will not be as direct as a RN or Medical Doctor.
Reply:It would definitely help to get in at the ground level of nursing, medicine or pharmacy, if you want to get involved in any area of the health care disiciplines. You have to get into the lingo of the primary focus of your research interests.
Reply:Just as a layperson, I don't know that RN would be the right route for your daughter for the mere fact that she does not want to work with patients. Nursing students do a lot of clinicals, fieldwork in healthcare facilities and most, if not all, of their hands-on experience is in direct patient care. The suggestion was probably due to those with a nursing degree seemingly have a wide range of job areas to choose from (or that was how it used to be :) Perhaps she can look into getting a degree in biology, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, public health/epidemiology. I was, however, under the impression that those that work in research have at least a master's degree if not a doctoral degree.
Reply:nursing is a great field and is not limited to patient care. have your daughter speak to a counselor at her local community college for more info.
human teeth
Unclaimed animals in the pound should be used for medical research.?
do you agree or disagree.
defend your opinion and get an easy 10 pts
Unclaimed animals in the pound should be used for medical research.?
I don't think that animals in shelters would be suitible for most research. There is often no way to know their age, history, and genetics like in animals bred specificly for exsperimentation. If someone were running an exsperiment that could make use of them I see no reason why these animals should die in vain. It is either medical research or killed and rendered for animal feed and other products.
Reply:I support annie. Why should we take unclaimed animals when we can just take real human beings?
Reply:I say leave the animals alone and take the unclaimed children from the orphanage. We already have a population problem, why not use some of it for medical experiments. So yes, i do disagree with animal testing.
Reply:NO!!! They are innocent! Why not use murderers, rapists and child molestors for medical research...that would be a way of giving back a little of what they take from society
Reply:Since WE are the reason for them being there in the first place maybe WE should volunteer ourselves.
Reply:i beg to disagree because it is against a law that protects animals from such abuses. try to search in the net and you will see that law. besides, we have no right to abuse them and if we continue to do that, the worst thing to happen is that they might became extinct. instead using them for medical researches, it will be better if animals in the pounds be sold to pet shops.
Good Day!
Reply:no thats sick. i once knew someone who lost her dog, but then she got a call from a pound saying that they had found it. when she went to pick it up they had already put it to sleep an hour before she came. using ANY animal for medical research will prevent any animal from ever seeing its home again, or ever finding a home. with all the new medical technology, we should be able to simulate reactions in the animals.
what we should do is listen to bob barker and spay/neuter all stray animals. that way there are no unwanted pets.
Reply:I disagree but not for the same reason as the bleeding hearts who have already posted. Shelters have a limited amount of space and cannot afford to have unadoptable animals taking up the space that could be occupied by an animal that might be adopted and given a home somewhere. They have no choice but to euthanize the animals that don't get adopted within a reasonable time. This would seem to be an argument for using the animals that are slated to be killed for medical research except that such research requires controlled conditions. Animals bred for medical research are bred to be as genetically alike as possible. Unfortunately, animals from a shelter do not fit this requirement.
Reply:No, they are Innocent. Why not take some from our prisons. Some aren't getting out anyway. Maybe if they knew they were going to be used as Guinea pigs they wouldn't get in trouble.
Reply:NO!!! That's cruel. Animals are living beings,we don't hav the right to use them in any way just because we are superior beings. It doesn't matter what the cause or if it can save a human life. If anyone feels that animals should be used for medical research,i can say that u can use humans too. I mean,the results will be more accurate right. Walk around,grab a beggar or a homeless person and perform tests on them!
Reply:just imagine if 1 day u get up and find urself in a pound and realised that u cant speak or express urself and came to know u were going to be dipped in alcohol... would u like it same is the cases of these poor animals.so.i diagree
Reply:I totally agree with candleinthewind7579. Animals are innocent, criminals in jail are not innocent they are the ones that should be used for experiments. People in jail well know the difference between right and wrong, and defenseless animals should have a happy life and live and should not be used for any type on experiment ever.
Reply:I 100% agree with Cliffy, If we can do it with animals why not do it to unwanted children also. That would be better for medical testing anyway.
Reply:Yes, they should be used for medical research, food, fertilizer, bio-diesel or whatever else you can think of. The reason being waste not, want not.
defend your opinion and get an easy 10 pts
Unclaimed animals in the pound should be used for medical research.?
I don't think that animals in shelters would be suitible for most research. There is often no way to know their age, history, and genetics like in animals bred specificly for exsperimentation. If someone were running an exsperiment that could make use of them I see no reason why these animals should die in vain. It is either medical research or killed and rendered for animal feed and other products.
Reply:I support annie. Why should we take unclaimed animals when we can just take real human beings?
Reply:I say leave the animals alone and take the unclaimed children from the orphanage. We already have a population problem, why not use some of it for medical experiments. So yes, i do disagree with animal testing.
Reply:NO!!! They are innocent! Why not use murderers, rapists and child molestors for medical research...that would be a way of giving back a little of what they take from society
Reply:Since WE are the reason for them being there in the first place maybe WE should volunteer ourselves.
Reply:i beg to disagree because it is against a law that protects animals from such abuses. try to search in the net and you will see that law. besides, we have no right to abuse them and if we continue to do that, the worst thing to happen is that they might became extinct. instead using them for medical researches, it will be better if animals in the pounds be sold to pet shops.
Good Day!
Reply:no thats sick. i once knew someone who lost her dog, but then she got a call from a pound saying that they had found it. when she went to pick it up they had already put it to sleep an hour before she came. using ANY animal for medical research will prevent any animal from ever seeing its home again, or ever finding a home. with all the new medical technology, we should be able to simulate reactions in the animals.
what we should do is listen to bob barker and spay/neuter all stray animals. that way there are no unwanted pets.
Reply:I disagree but not for the same reason as the bleeding hearts who have already posted. Shelters have a limited amount of space and cannot afford to have unadoptable animals taking up the space that could be occupied by an animal that might be adopted and given a home somewhere. They have no choice but to euthanize the animals that don't get adopted within a reasonable time. This would seem to be an argument for using the animals that are slated to be killed for medical research except that such research requires controlled conditions. Animals bred for medical research are bred to be as genetically alike as possible. Unfortunately, animals from a shelter do not fit this requirement.
Reply:No, they are Innocent. Why not take some from our prisons. Some aren't getting out anyway. Maybe if they knew they were going to be used as Guinea pigs they wouldn't get in trouble.
Reply:NO!!! That's cruel. Animals are living beings,we don't hav the right to use them in any way just because we are superior beings. It doesn't matter what the cause or if it can save a human life. If anyone feels that animals should be used for medical research,i can say that u can use humans too. I mean,the results will be more accurate right. Walk around,grab a beggar or a homeless person and perform tests on them!
Reply:just imagine if 1 day u get up and find urself in a pound and realised that u cant speak or express urself and came to know u were going to be dipped in alcohol... would u like it same is the cases of these poor animals.so.i diagree
Reply:I totally agree with candleinthewind7579. Animals are innocent, criminals in jail are not innocent they are the ones that should be used for experiments. People in jail well know the difference between right and wrong, and defenseless animals should have a happy life and live and should not be used for any type on experiment ever.
Reply:I 100% agree with Cliffy, If we can do it with animals why not do it to unwanted children also. That would be better for medical testing anyway.
Reply:Yes, they should be used for medical research, food, fertilizer, bio-diesel or whatever else you can think of. The reason being waste not, want not.
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or Why Not ? (I think Animal Cruelty is wrong)?
I need to know, because idk. because i need to write something about it :D
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or Why Not ? (I think Animal Cruelty is wrong)?
For medical research, yes. Thanks to the sacrifices of many animals, we have been provided with treatments for cancer, AIDS, neurological diseases, rabies, distemper, small pox, anthrax, diabetes, liver and heart disease, genetics, spiral cord injuries, strokes, organ transplants, insulin discovery, polio prevention, etc. Some animal testing has really helped to advance the medical field (for both humans AND animals). I don't like to think about the animals being tested on and dying, but animal testing has done a lot to help other animals and humans. Without some animal (and human) testing, we could never learn about certain diseases and how to treat or even cure them, so it's not always a bad thing. I will NEVER support unnecessary toxic and cosmetic testing on animals, but for medical purposes, I believe it's done A LOT of good for people AND animals.
Reply:Sadly,I think it is necessary. I am not advocating harming animals, but if we did'nt use them for testing, our only feasible alternative would be human guinea pigs and lets be honest, if you believe in God and the bible, animals are here for our use. The question to ask yourself is what if your child or someone you loved needed a treatment, but it had not been tested yet. Would you have it tested on your child or the animal?
Reply:Animal cruelty in the form of animal testing is barbaric but sadly there is nothing we can do to stop it,
there are good arguments both sides but it boils down to medical research ,as humans we see animal as a lesser being,i don't and cant stand animal testing and fight it all the way,but with all then disease and cancers that we have people think its easier and safer to test on animals than humans,people think animals are lesser beings and are not the same as humans,the most ironic thing is we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers and go up in arms when animals are treated cruelly,but then you have animal testing,which is animal cruelty you just can win
Reply:Medical research is NECESSARY. Using animals is NECESSARY. Bottom line. As diseases evolve, so must medical research.
Reply:Pumpkin, if this is homework, it should be posted in the homework section, but that's okay. I'm sure you'll get lots of answers.
Reply:I agree with you.. it is disgusting. So glad that many of the producers are clearly stating that their product was not tested on animals. I refuse to buy anything that has been tested them. Seen some really horrible footage of animals in labs .. feel I could just go over there and subject the research teams to the same indignities, pain and suffering. How can man be so disrespectful towards Mother Nature's creations? Small wonder that this world is falling to pieces around us. We need to stand up and be counted.. actions speak louder than words.
Reply:Most research facilities take good care of their animals, and do not treat them inhumanely. They take care of them and make sure the animals are put down humanely.
Think of it this way: would you like the new drug to be tested on you or on a mouse? There are a lot of different ways a drug can kill, all of them nasty. Would you rather bury a lot of mice or a lot of people?
Reply:If you take medication, if you have ever had a surgery or a vaccine, you can thank animal testing.
If you are opposed to all animal testing no matter what, then you should not use any medicine or medical services as about 90% of it was derived from testing on animals.
It is unfair for someone to interfere with testing that will save lives tomorrow and then to use what was learned with animal testing yesterday.
Do you understand what I mean?
Because of animal testing, we may one day have a cure for AIDS. Because of animal testing of yesterday, diabetics can live much longer and healthier lives. If you are a diabetic and take that medicine but deny future generations a cure, then you are a hypocrite.
I am against any unnecessarily repetitive animal testing and against any animal testing that has already been done.
My dog got a vaccine against parvo because another dog was a test dog in a laboratory. That test dog has saved thousands of other dogs lives.
My cat got a vaccination for feline distemper. That was tested on another cat. Because of that study, thousands of other cats don't die of a dreadful disease.
Does it suck? Sure it does. Should it be as humane as possible? Of course. Unfortunately, until another method is found, animal testing is all we have to work with. After initial testing on animals, many people volunteer for clinical studies and submit themselves to testing that may be dangerous for them.
Reply:I noticed alot of people are agreeing with medical research..and thats fine there opinions..i think we should have a limit of animals that can be or will be tested...as for domestic products NO why do we need more shampoos or conditioners out on the market..thats is strictly business..why do we continue using bunnies or mice, for shampoo or mascara....we already have a well developed domestic line of products..
another thing why do we use bunnies and mice and other animals for testing i keep referring to bunnies and mice because thats what gets tested the most..we(humans) have nothing in common with Bunny's and mice..
I can go on and on on how a monkey eyes were sewn shut simple because they wanted to do a blindness experience..IS THAT MEDICAL???? no
just a thought
There life to them is as precious as our life is to us!!
Reply:I think its wrong...But at the same time I know it has to be done...
I just wish people could be more humane and not treat the animals so badly. There no need to mistreat them in the process.
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or Why Not ? (I think Animal Cruelty is wrong)?
For medical research, yes. Thanks to the sacrifices of many animals, we have been provided with treatments for cancer, AIDS, neurological diseases, rabies, distemper, small pox, anthrax, diabetes, liver and heart disease, genetics, spiral cord injuries, strokes, organ transplants, insulin discovery, polio prevention, etc. Some animal testing has really helped to advance the medical field (for both humans AND animals). I don't like to think about the animals being tested on and dying, but animal testing has done a lot to help other animals and humans. Without some animal (and human) testing, we could never learn about certain diseases and how to treat or even cure them, so it's not always a bad thing. I will NEVER support unnecessary toxic and cosmetic testing on animals, but for medical purposes, I believe it's done A LOT of good for people AND animals.
Reply:Sadly,I think it is necessary. I am not advocating harming animals, but if we did'nt use them for testing, our only feasible alternative would be human guinea pigs and lets be honest, if you believe in God and the bible, animals are here for our use. The question to ask yourself is what if your child or someone you loved needed a treatment, but it had not been tested yet. Would you have it tested on your child or the animal?
Reply:Animal cruelty in the form of animal testing is barbaric but sadly there is nothing we can do to stop it,
there are good arguments both sides but it boils down to medical research ,as humans we see animal as a lesser being,i don't and cant stand animal testing and fight it all the way,but with all then disease and cancers that we have people think its easier and safer to test on animals than humans,people think animals are lesser beings and are not the same as humans,the most ironic thing is we are supposed to be a nation of animal lovers and go up in arms when animals are treated cruelly,but then you have animal testing,which is animal cruelty you just can win
Reply:Medical research is NECESSARY. Using animals is NECESSARY. Bottom line. As diseases evolve, so must medical research.
Reply:Pumpkin, if this is homework, it should be posted in the homework section, but that's okay. I'm sure you'll get lots of answers.
Reply:I agree with you.. it is disgusting. So glad that many of the producers are clearly stating that their product was not tested on animals. I refuse to buy anything that has been tested them. Seen some really horrible footage of animals in labs .. feel I could just go over there and subject the research teams to the same indignities, pain and suffering. How can man be so disrespectful towards Mother Nature's creations? Small wonder that this world is falling to pieces around us. We need to stand up and be counted.. actions speak louder than words.
Reply:Most research facilities take good care of their animals, and do not treat them inhumanely. They take care of them and make sure the animals are put down humanely.
Think of it this way: would you like the new drug to be tested on you or on a mouse? There are a lot of different ways a drug can kill, all of them nasty. Would you rather bury a lot of mice or a lot of people?
Reply:If you take medication, if you have ever had a surgery or a vaccine, you can thank animal testing.
If you are opposed to all animal testing no matter what, then you should not use any medicine or medical services as about 90% of it was derived from testing on animals.
It is unfair for someone to interfere with testing that will save lives tomorrow and then to use what was learned with animal testing yesterday.
Do you understand what I mean?
Because of animal testing, we may one day have a cure for AIDS. Because of animal testing of yesterday, diabetics can live much longer and healthier lives. If you are a diabetic and take that medicine but deny future generations a cure, then you are a hypocrite.
I am against any unnecessarily repetitive animal testing and against any animal testing that has already been done.
My dog got a vaccine against parvo because another dog was a test dog in a laboratory. That test dog has saved thousands of other dogs lives.
My cat got a vaccination for feline distemper. That was tested on another cat. Because of that study, thousands of other cats don't die of a dreadful disease.
Does it suck? Sure it does. Should it be as humane as possible? Of course. Unfortunately, until another method is found, animal testing is all we have to work with. After initial testing on animals, many people volunteer for clinical studies and submit themselves to testing that may be dangerous for them.
Reply:I noticed alot of people are agreeing with medical research..and thats fine there opinions..i think we should have a limit of animals that can be or will be tested...as for domestic products NO why do we need more shampoos or conditioners out on the market..thats is strictly business..why do we continue using bunnies or mice, for shampoo or mascara....we already have a well developed domestic line of products..
another thing why do we use bunnies and mice and other animals for testing i keep referring to bunnies and mice because thats what gets tested the most..we(humans) have nothing in common with Bunny's and mice..
I can go on and on on how a monkey eyes were sewn shut simple because they wanted to do a blindness experience..IS THAT MEDICAL???? no
just a thought
There life to them is as precious as our life is to us!!
Reply:I think its wrong...But at the same time I know it has to be done...
I just wish people could be more humane and not treat the animals so badly. There no need to mistreat them in the process.
I am a researcher (biochemist) in medical health can I find a job in research projects /in toronto?
I am well versed in proposal writing, research paper / articles writing for publication in medical journal. I have experience in proposal processing for award of research grant. I can write research reports, progress reports on the projects, can also monitor and evaluate the project for funding. I have published 33 original research papers in various medical jouranals, and 17 health reports in print media. I have experience in doing clincial biochemistry, including enzyme assays, immuno assays, radio immunoassays.
I have done MSc in Biochemistry.
I am a permanent resident in Canada
With all the above experience and qualification can I find a job related to my field/
I am a researcher (biochemist) in medical health can I find a job in research projects /in toronto?
I would think you could with your qualifications! I live in Calgary where it is booming right now but not up to date on the Toronto employment scenario. While you are looking, you could consider a home business in your field. It's called Freelife International and it recently reinvented itself with the introduction of Himilayan Goji Juice. It is the only functional juice on the market with medical validation. There are 72 clinical studies on Pubmed.org under the heading Lycium Barbarum. Many health practioners are a part of this company with the amazing little red berry from Tibet.
I have done MSc in Biochemistry.
I am a permanent resident in Canada
With all the above experience and qualification can I find a job related to my field/
I am a researcher (biochemist) in medical health can I find a job in research projects /in toronto?
I would think you could with your qualifications! I live in Calgary where it is booming right now but not up to date on the Toronto employment scenario. While you are looking, you could consider a home business in your field. It's called Freelife International and it recently reinvented itself with the introduction of Himilayan Goji Juice. It is the only functional juice on the market with medical validation. There are 72 clinical studies on Pubmed.org under the heading Lycium Barbarum. Many health practioners are a part of this company with the amazing little red berry from Tibet.
Doing a medical research project on dibetes?
is there a way to get rid of it like excersize when you get it ?or you cant get rid of it when you have it like eat healthy and what are some ways to keep away from it if your heavySet (Fat)
Doing a medical research project on dibetes?
To date, there is no cure for diabetes. Some can control it through diet and exercise w/o medications.
If you are heavy, moderate exercise like a brisk walk per day, drinking water, limiting carbohydrates and increasing protein are ways to stave off diabetes. However, it is a genetic disease and runs in families. Although w/ proper diet and exercise and drinking plenty of water can stave off age of onset in many people whether you are heavy or not.
I hope this helps.
You sound interested in health and medicine. You'd make a great medical transcriptionist ; )
Reply:If your doing a medical research project, shouldn't you know something about it?
By definition, once you have it, you have it for life. Exercising and loosing weight can help and bring you to baseline, but you will have it for the rest of your life --although you might not need treatment.
There are exceptions, like if you get a Islet transplant or pancrease transplant.
Reply:You need to learn how and what causes blood sugar to spike, like high glycemic foods and diet foods. You need to exercise to bring down blood sugars and to help your body digest food so yes exercise is really very good for you. There is a formula to eating right and working out and making sure you are nutritionally sound so all you have to do is to learn how to alkalize your body and eat nutritionally sound foods.
my cat
Doing a medical research project on dibetes?
To date, there is no cure for diabetes. Some can control it through diet and exercise w/o medications.
If you are heavy, moderate exercise like a brisk walk per day, drinking water, limiting carbohydrates and increasing protein are ways to stave off diabetes. However, it is a genetic disease and runs in families. Although w/ proper diet and exercise and drinking plenty of water can stave off age of onset in many people whether you are heavy or not.
I hope this helps.
You sound interested in health and medicine. You'd make a great medical transcriptionist ; )
Reply:If your doing a medical research project, shouldn't you know something about it?
By definition, once you have it, you have it for life. Exercising and loosing weight can help and bring you to baseline, but you will have it for the rest of your life --although you might not need treatment.
There are exceptions, like if you get a Islet transplant or pancrease transplant.
Reply:You need to learn how and what causes blood sugar to spike, like high glycemic foods and diet foods. You need to exercise to bring down blood sugars and to help your body digest food so yes exercise is really very good for you. There is a formula to eating right and working out and making sure you are nutritionally sound so all you have to do is to learn how to alkalize your body and eat nutritionally sound foods.
my cat
Metastatic liver cancer- am looking for medical center that does the most research in that area?
I contracted colon cancer about three years ago and had it removed by resection. This was followed by chemo using oxiplatin anf FU-5. I faired really well except for neural damage in feet. Now a spot has appeared in the upper portion of my liver which is metastatic from the colon. A local liver surgeon is planning a resection and this will undoubted be followed by more chemo. I understand the real risk is from other seedlings of the cancer which may now start to appear either in the liver or other organs and that my defenses will be really low to fight them. I am looking to find the research center who most commonly deals with metastatic colon cancer to learn as much as possible about new techniques, drugs, or whatever. I might go there for the surgery or at a minimum get a second opinion on procedure etc.
Metastatic liver cancer- am looking for medical center that does the most research in that area?
stanford medical center- plus u should get hold of sales reps from genentech and see if they have new study going on that is specific for liver cancer.
Reply:Standford, Sloan Kettering or MD Anderson are all extremely qualified to deal with complicated cancers! Good luck!
Reply:Check with Sloan Kettering in NYC. We took my dad there for pancreatic cancer. They are the experts on just about every type of cancer.
Reply:MD Anderson in Houston is a great place from what I've heard.
Good luck!
http://www.mdanderson.org/
Reply:Look at the cancer research on these sites. glycoscience.org
and glycoresource.com
Metastatic liver cancer- am looking for medical center that does the most research in that area?
stanford medical center- plus u should get hold of sales reps from genentech and see if they have new study going on that is specific for liver cancer.
Reply:Standford, Sloan Kettering or MD Anderson are all extremely qualified to deal with complicated cancers! Good luck!
Reply:Check with Sloan Kettering in NYC. We took my dad there for pancreatic cancer. They are the experts on just about every type of cancer.
Reply:MD Anderson in Houston is a great place from what I've heard.
Good luck!
http://www.mdanderson.org/
Reply:Look at the cancer research on these sites. glycoscience.org
and glycoresource.com
If we do not use animals for food and agriculture and medical research ....?
Then what do you recomend to use instead of animals???
If we do not use animals for food and agriculture and medical research ....?
Animals are to be treated humanely but they are also to be treated as food. I suggest we continue to use animals for food and medical research.
Reply:In medical research u can e.g grow human tissue, test om computers is up-coming, i've heard of testing on bacteria etc...
Animals differ a lot from humans so they're not the best alternative when it comes to testing chemicals etc...
If we don't use animals for food, we can eat nuts, seeds, beans n vegetables n food substitutes for vegans etc...
Reply:Animals are living beings like human but if they come in food chain using them for food is ok except that are not extinct.If doing research using animals benefit others than it is ok.
Reply:You have to use animals for food, regardless of what vegans claim you simply cannot get all the necessary nutrients from plants. PERIOD. Its a fact.
Reply:Better you can use animal models for research.....you can use artificially manufactured animal tissues for food...And in agriculture you cam rely on machines....
Reply:-We could open more zoos
-Fence in all our yards and use them as lawn mowers
-Use them as models for art students
-Allow the kids in schools to take care of them, like the 4H program, as one of their subjects (this way kids will know responsability when they are grown)
-Use them to help sick people feel better, like they do with dogs %26amp; cats
-Breed them in space and make new animals that can live in space
-Homeschooler’s can have their own 4H type of program
-Love them
-Care for them
Reply:We'd have to use people, I guess.
Because there wouldn't be enough food for them to live.
Reply:Animals for food is OK it's been adapted as soon as humans learned to eat meat. People and animal used for research, medical testing etc. depends on what type of testing will be done. There should be a regulating body or standardized system in choosing what will be used as a test subject.
Reply:people...i don't agree with animal testing/medical research, but for food i do agree. that's what they were made for and if we didn't eat them the would become overpopulated and they would be forced to fend for themselves as it would be to expensive to feed and care for them, and that would lead to them becoming diseased and they are not really adapt to living and fending for themselves, domestic cows chickens and pigs, are not fit to live in the wild, so if they are going to die let them it be to our benefit.if ever one stopped eating meat, so many problems would come up, as the farmers would not want to pay to for them to eat, so they would all eventually starve to death, so if you want to help out animals, throw away your fake meat an eat a burger. Its your personal choice to eat meat or not, but don't Try to force it on to others, cause i will hit you with a steak.
If we do not use animals for food and agriculture and medical research ....?
Animals are to be treated humanely but they are also to be treated as food. I suggest we continue to use animals for food and medical research.
Reply:In medical research u can e.g grow human tissue, test om computers is up-coming, i've heard of testing on bacteria etc...
Animals differ a lot from humans so they're not the best alternative when it comes to testing chemicals etc...
If we don't use animals for food, we can eat nuts, seeds, beans n vegetables n food substitutes for vegans etc...
Reply:Animals are living beings like human but if they come in food chain using them for food is ok except that are not extinct.If doing research using animals benefit others than it is ok.
Reply:You have to use animals for food, regardless of what vegans claim you simply cannot get all the necessary nutrients from plants. PERIOD. Its a fact.
Reply:Better you can use animal models for research.....you can use artificially manufactured animal tissues for food...And in agriculture you cam rely on machines....
Reply:-We could open more zoos
-Fence in all our yards and use them as lawn mowers
-Use them as models for art students
-Allow the kids in schools to take care of them, like the 4H program, as one of their subjects (this way kids will know responsability when they are grown)
-Use them to help sick people feel better, like they do with dogs %26amp; cats
-Breed them in space and make new animals that can live in space
-Homeschooler’s can have their own 4H type of program
-Love them
-Care for them
Reply:We'd have to use people, I guess.
Because there wouldn't be enough food for them to live.
Reply:Animals for food is OK it's been adapted as soon as humans learned to eat meat. People and animal used for research, medical testing etc. depends on what type of testing will be done. There should be a regulating body or standardized system in choosing what will be used as a test subject.
Reply:people...i don't agree with animal testing/medical research, but for food i do agree. that's what they were made for and if we didn't eat them the would become overpopulated and they would be forced to fend for themselves as it would be to expensive to feed and care for them, and that would lead to them becoming diseased and they are not really adapt to living and fending for themselves, domestic cows chickens and pigs, are not fit to live in the wild, so if they are going to die let them it be to our benefit.if ever one stopped eating meat, so many problems would come up, as the farmers would not want to pay to for them to eat, so they would all eventually starve to death, so if you want to help out animals, throw away your fake meat an eat a burger. Its your personal choice to eat meat or not, but don't Try to force it on to others, cause i will hit you with a steak.
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
It has to be the future, if we are ever going to reach our full potential as a species and get off this rock and start exploring the universe.
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
Yes. If we did not experiment we would still be walking round dragging our knuckles on the ground and eating our next cave neighbour.
Reply:my wife found out she has leukemia ( cancer of the blood) in feb this year .she was told she has 3 years to live without a stem cell transplant..the only way to get rid of it hopefully forever is with a stem cell transplant.without this medical advancement ,she and thousands of people would die..im not into abortion and all that stuff but,i think we as humans need new medical breakthrus in order to help with our ever growing number of diseses and health problems.so my answer is yes it is etical..and life saving..
Reply:I don't think so. It uses for saving life purpose.
Reply:The biggest problem is, and many people don't want to admit it, is that stem cells aren't proven to cure ANYTHING, they are just theoretically able to build as new cells. But if there was any concrete proof don't you think every medical manufacture would be all over getting the rights to the uses of stem cells? the answer is yes, but they aren't bitting, because their is nothing to buy... yet.
Ethical? why not, the aborted fetuses are just gonna be flushed, why not use them for something usefull.
Reply:yes because, if you think about it, if we can regrow tissues, there is a possibility that physical deterioration due to illness would be a thing of the past.
If we can regrow skin cells, then we can regrow tissues, muscles, maybe even bone!
Reply:YES - My mum has a serious brain disease and the only thing that could possibily save her is stem cells, unfortunately as it is taking so long what with all the "ethical issues and what not" treatment will come to late for her, she is only in her 50's
Reply:The only reason you hear about ethics is because there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. So far adult stem cells have shown great promise in the body but they cannot become certain cells. But embryonic stem cells can become anything. They come from aborted embryos so Bush doesn't want to fund for exploring their potential. But I think that since abortion is performed anyway why can't we use the stem cells? If I saw a baby in a burning building and a rack of embryos, I would save the baby are ignore the rack because with current tech the embryos can survive in that state for only 5 to 7 years.
Reply:it depends - if a loved one was going to die or had some terrible disability that could be cured through stem cell research - you would probably think it is the best thing since the invention of the wheel!.
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
Yes. If we did not experiment we would still be walking round dragging our knuckles on the ground and eating our next cave neighbour.
Reply:my wife found out she has leukemia ( cancer of the blood) in feb this year .she was told she has 3 years to live without a stem cell transplant..the only way to get rid of it hopefully forever is with a stem cell transplant.without this medical advancement ,she and thousands of people would die..im not into abortion and all that stuff but,i think we as humans need new medical breakthrus in order to help with our ever growing number of diseses and health problems.so my answer is yes it is etical..and life saving..
Reply:I don't think so. It uses for saving life purpose.
Reply:The biggest problem is, and many people don't want to admit it, is that stem cells aren't proven to cure ANYTHING, they are just theoretically able to build as new cells. But if there was any concrete proof don't you think every medical manufacture would be all over getting the rights to the uses of stem cells? the answer is yes, but they aren't bitting, because their is nothing to buy... yet.
Ethical? why not, the aborted fetuses are just gonna be flushed, why not use them for something usefull.
Reply:yes because, if you think about it, if we can regrow tissues, there is a possibility that physical deterioration due to illness would be a thing of the past.
If we can regrow skin cells, then we can regrow tissues, muscles, maybe even bone!
Reply:YES - My mum has a serious brain disease and the only thing that could possibily save her is stem cells, unfortunately as it is taking so long what with all the "ethical issues and what not" treatment will come to late for her, she is only in her 50's
Reply:The only reason you hear about ethics is because there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. So far adult stem cells have shown great promise in the body but they cannot become certain cells. But embryonic stem cells can become anything. They come from aborted embryos so Bush doesn't want to fund for exploring their potential. But I think that since abortion is performed anyway why can't we use the stem cells? If I saw a baby in a burning building and a rack of embryos, I would save the baby are ignore the rack because with current tech the embryos can survive in that state for only 5 to 7 years.
Reply:it depends - if a loved one was going to die or had some terrible disability that could be cured through stem cell research - you would probably think it is the best thing since the invention of the wheel!.
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
It has to be the future, if we are ever going to reach our full potential as a species and get off this rock and start exploring the universe.
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
Yes. If we did not experiment we would still be walking round dragging our knuckles on the ground and eating our next cave neighbour.
Reply:my wife found out she has leukemia ( cancer of the blood) in feb this year .she was told she has 3 years to live without a stem cell transplant..the only way to get rid of it hopefully forever is with a stem cell transplant.without this medical advancement ,she and thousands of people would die..im not into abortion and all that stuff but,i think we as humans need new medical breakthrus in order to help with our ever growing number of diseses and health problems.so my answer is yes it is etical..and life saving..
Reply:I don't think so. It uses for saving life purpose.
Reply:The biggest problem is, and many people don't want to admit it, is that stem cells aren't proven to cure ANYTHING, they are just theoretically able to build as new cells. But if there was any concrete proof don't you think every medical manufacture would be all over getting the rights to the uses of stem cells? the answer is yes, but they aren't bitting, because their is nothing to buy... yet.
Ethical? why not, the aborted fetuses are just gonna be flushed, why not use them for something usefull.
Reply:yes because, if you think about it, if we can regrow tissues, there is a possibility that physical deterioration due to illness would be a thing of the past.
If we can regrow skin cells, then we can regrow tissues, muscles, maybe even bone!
Reply:YES - My mum has a serious brain disease and the only thing that could possibily save her is stem cells, unfortunately as it is taking so long what with all the "ethical issues and what not" treatment will come to late for her, she is only in her 50's
Reply:The only reason you hear about ethics is because there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. So far adult stem cells have shown great promise in the body but they cannot become certain cells. But embryonic stem cells can become anything. They come from aborted embryos so Bush doesn't want to fund for exploring their potential. But I think that since abortion is performed anyway why can't we use the stem cells? If I saw a baby in a burning building and a rack of embryos, I would save the baby are ignore the rack because with current tech the embryos can survive in that state for only 5 to 7 years.
Reply:it depends - if a loved one was going to die or had some terrible disability that could be cured through stem cell research - you would probably think it is the best thing since the invention of the wheel!.
dog teeth
Is the use of stem cells in medical research ethical?
Yes. If we did not experiment we would still be walking round dragging our knuckles on the ground and eating our next cave neighbour.
Reply:my wife found out she has leukemia ( cancer of the blood) in feb this year .she was told she has 3 years to live without a stem cell transplant..the only way to get rid of it hopefully forever is with a stem cell transplant.without this medical advancement ,she and thousands of people would die..im not into abortion and all that stuff but,i think we as humans need new medical breakthrus in order to help with our ever growing number of diseses and health problems.so my answer is yes it is etical..and life saving..
Reply:I don't think so. It uses for saving life purpose.
Reply:The biggest problem is, and many people don't want to admit it, is that stem cells aren't proven to cure ANYTHING, they are just theoretically able to build as new cells. But if there was any concrete proof don't you think every medical manufacture would be all over getting the rights to the uses of stem cells? the answer is yes, but they aren't bitting, because their is nothing to buy... yet.
Ethical? why not, the aborted fetuses are just gonna be flushed, why not use them for something usefull.
Reply:yes because, if you think about it, if we can regrow tissues, there is a possibility that physical deterioration due to illness would be a thing of the past.
If we can regrow skin cells, then we can regrow tissues, muscles, maybe even bone!
Reply:YES - My mum has a serious brain disease and the only thing that could possibily save her is stem cells, unfortunately as it is taking so long what with all the "ethical issues and what not" treatment will come to late for her, she is only in her 50's
Reply:The only reason you hear about ethics is because there are two types of stem cells: embryonic and adult. So far adult stem cells have shown great promise in the body but they cannot become certain cells. But embryonic stem cells can become anything. They come from aborted embryos so Bush doesn't want to fund for exploring their potential. But I think that since abortion is performed anyway why can't we use the stem cells? If I saw a baby in a burning building and a rack of embryos, I would save the baby are ignore the rack because with current tech the embryos can survive in that state for only 5 to 7 years.
Reply:it depends - if a loved one was going to die or had some terrible disability that could be cured through stem cell research - you would probably think it is the best thing since the invention of the wheel!.
dog teeth
How could someone find a job a medical research assistant?
You may need at least a master's degree or possibly even a doctorate degree to work in medical research. Perhaps a degree in psychobiology (psychology + biology), biology or chemistry would allow you more job openings to qualify for. How about asking your local university that does medical research of their prerequisites for such a position.
Are there any medical research places that give you money compensation in phoenix, arizona?
Check at the universities. They usually have most of the research grants that are going on. Or try a private drug manufacturer. That's a little more risky though.
Have you ever tried medical research study?
I just signed up, its for 16 days and they pay me 4,000$ for it, study is for obesity and diabetics, I told my friends and all of them say negetive stuff about it, but none of them tried it, and I never tried it either, so im little bit sceptic about it now, I want to hear from you if you ever gone to one of these, what to look out for, what side effects it really has and etc
Have you ever tried medical research study?
Yes, my husband was in a research study and he died, no joke.
Thousands of people were on Phen-fen as a study, it passed the FDA and wasn't until a few years later they found out all the bad crap (after people had died from strokes and heart attacks).
If the drug you are trialing is never pursued because they see no benefit, and there are long-term effects, who's gonna tell you? That is the $4000 question you should have asked before signing.
Good luck to you.
Reply:Whether or not they even know the side-effects depends on what phase the study is in. You should have asked the doctors when you signed up, rather than expecting people who aren't involved in the study to know.
Have you ever tried medical research study?
Yes, my husband was in a research study and he died, no joke.
Thousands of people were on Phen-fen as a study, it passed the FDA and wasn't until a few years later they found out all the bad crap (after people had died from strokes and heart attacks).
If the drug you are trialing is never pursued because they see no benefit, and there are long-term effects, who's gonna tell you? That is the $4000 question you should have asked before signing.
Good luck to you.
Reply:Whether or not they even know the side-effects depends on what phase the study is in. You should have asked the doctors when you signed up, rather than expecting people who aren't involved in the study to know.
Should inmates on death row have the option to repent by becoming guinea pigs in medical research tests?
Such as testing Cancer treatments,AIDS research ect to give back to society in a positive way instead of making license plates.
Should inmates on death row have the option to repent by becoming guinea pigs in medical research tests?
hey cam1princess, how about they donate themselves to the transplant doctors and give their parts all away. You could have eye transplants, heart transplants, liver, and so on. Help a lot of people to have good lives again. How about skin transplants for burn victims. Sure, Why not...
Reply:No Yes No Yes No. Cant make up my mind. Was experimented on.
Reply:At least until their death sentence is carried out.
Reply:Or we could give all inmates the option of participating in such research (they'd still be in jail, but we could give them extra pudding rations or something).
Reply:Sure why not, it would be a way for them to repey their debt to society instead of escaping it through death. Which in death they arent really escaping they still have to meet the maker.
Reply:Keep in mind that the primary obligation concerning one sentenced to death is to carry out the penalty declared by the court. Eventually, the sentence must be carried out unless a judge approves the alternate means.
The use of prisoners for medical experiments, however, might be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment" which is disallowed by the Constitution. Even if the prisoners were "willing", it could be argued that they were coerced to participate in the medical experiments since they were threatened by death otherwise. You could never truly get a "voluntary" participant. Upon appeal after being re-sentenced to the "alternate" punishment, the new punishment could easily be ruled unconstitutional. From there, they could conceivably be set free entirely based on consitiutional violations.
So no, from a legal perspective, I don't think we could offer these type of alternate "punishments" to those on death row. It could backfire and set them free altogether.
Reply:no
Reply:It should be allowed but it should be up to the individual. Furthermore, society should be willing to assist such a volunteer should something go wrong or something unforseen should occur. Imprisoned people should not be subject to wild or highly speculative experiments such as experiment to see the effect of a man giving birth. However, immates with AIDs might want to participate in drug experiments that will lead to a cure.
Reply:They wouldn't be much use unless they had cancer or AIDS...
Reply:Everyone on death row repents. They do not want to die, sorta like their victims did not want to die.
dr teeth
Should inmates on death row have the option to repent by becoming guinea pigs in medical research tests?
hey cam1princess, how about they donate themselves to the transplant doctors and give their parts all away. You could have eye transplants, heart transplants, liver, and so on. Help a lot of people to have good lives again. How about skin transplants for burn victims. Sure, Why not...
Reply:No Yes No Yes No. Cant make up my mind. Was experimented on.
Reply:At least until their death sentence is carried out.
Reply:Or we could give all inmates the option of participating in such research (they'd still be in jail, but we could give them extra pudding rations or something).
Reply:Sure why not, it would be a way for them to repey their debt to society instead of escaping it through death. Which in death they arent really escaping they still have to meet the maker.
Reply:Keep in mind that the primary obligation concerning one sentenced to death is to carry out the penalty declared by the court. Eventually, the sentence must be carried out unless a judge approves the alternate means.
The use of prisoners for medical experiments, however, might be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment" which is disallowed by the Constitution. Even if the prisoners were "willing", it could be argued that they were coerced to participate in the medical experiments since they were threatened by death otherwise. You could never truly get a "voluntary" participant. Upon appeal after being re-sentenced to the "alternate" punishment, the new punishment could easily be ruled unconstitutional. From there, they could conceivably be set free entirely based on consitiutional violations.
So no, from a legal perspective, I don't think we could offer these type of alternate "punishments" to those on death row. It could backfire and set them free altogether.
Reply:no
Reply:It should be allowed but it should be up to the individual. Furthermore, society should be willing to assist such a volunteer should something go wrong or something unforseen should occur. Imprisoned people should not be subject to wild or highly speculative experiments such as experiment to see the effect of a man giving birth. However, immates with AIDs might want to participate in drug experiments that will lead to a cure.
Reply:They wouldn't be much use unless they had cancer or AIDS...
Reply:Everyone on death row repents. They do not want to die, sorta like their victims did not want to die.
dr teeth
What looks better for medical school, Laboratory research or clinical research?
both
What looks better for medical school, Laboratory research or clinical research?
While laboratory research probably looks better for medical school (because it shows you have some fundamental understanding of science), clinical research, if done properly, is just as valuable. However, clinical research requires an understanding of the fundamentals of medicine for it to be done well, and therefore, for someone who have not had clinical experience with patients, it may not be as ideal. Lab research does not require one to know or have had experience with seeing many patients.
Reply:I think it strongly depends on what sector of medicine you have chosen. Lab research (to me) indicates that you have spent a lot of time in the laboratory
Clinic Research (to me) indicates that you have experienced the clinical side as well as lab
When considering your school, check with your guidance counselor
LVN II
What looks better for medical school, Laboratory research or clinical research?
While laboratory research probably looks better for medical school (because it shows you have some fundamental understanding of science), clinical research, if done properly, is just as valuable. However, clinical research requires an understanding of the fundamentals of medicine for it to be done well, and therefore, for someone who have not had clinical experience with patients, it may not be as ideal. Lab research does not require one to know or have had experience with seeing many patients.
Reply:I think it strongly depends on what sector of medicine you have chosen. Lab research (to me) indicates that you have spent a lot of time in the laboratory
Clinic Research (to me) indicates that you have experienced the clinical side as well as lab
When considering your school, check with your guidance counselor
LVN II
Monkeys in medical research?
Why were monkeys used in medical research?
Monkeys in medical research?
Because their brains, reproductive and immune systems of primates are more similar to our own. Apes would actually be close to humans, but are not allowed in the UK and US.
Reply:They are primates and humans are primates.
Reply:They are primates, close to humans. Researchers don't use monkeys a lot though. They're extremely expensive. Cheaper to use a mouse(and even using mice for research is REALLY expensive) but of course mice aren't primates....
Monkeys in medical research?
Because their brains, reproductive and immune systems of primates are more similar to our own. Apes would actually be close to humans, but are not allowed in the UK and US.
Reply:They are primates and humans are primates.
Reply:They are primates, close to humans. Researchers don't use monkeys a lot though. They're extremely expensive. Cheaper to use a mouse(and even using mice for research is REALLY expensive) but of course mice aren't primates....
Stem Cell Research and Pro-Lifers: Where is the righteous indignation for the embryos burned as medical waste
When an embryo is unused by people who are trying to get pregnant through artificial means - when those people either give up, or succeed and don't want any more children... those embryos are incinerated in a huge pile of medical waste.
They are not buried.
They are not mourned.
There is no backlash of outrage from pro-lifers about those "babies."
When the SAME embryos are signed over by the people who own them to be used for medical research into stem cells... pro-lifers have a conniption.
Why?
Stem Cell Research and Pro-Lifers: Where is the righteous indignation for the embryos burned as medical waste
I love it how God always makes her way into the debate. Anyone ever heard of the first Amendment?
It's really sad that conservatives care more about some frozen cells then they do about people who are suffering. Must be that compassionate conservatism hard at work
Reply:You people are idiots.
Embyros are not children.
Losing an embyro is not losing a baby.
They aren't alive.
We aren't even talking about a fetus at this stage.
Stem Cell research could lead to the curing of some many diseases.
The fact that you idiots would sentence people to death over potential babies makes me sick.
Reply:I think it's just not highlighted. I personally have a problem with that too.
Anyways, I think part of the outrage is that people have a problem with government funding of embryonic stem cell research.
*let me clarify...I don't like the idea of creating a ton of embryos and only "trying" a few. I don't know the facts like y'all but the idea of it doesn't work for me. I'm not saying I'm against fertility treatment or couples trying to be parents. (I hope that makes sense)
Reply:Because when used for medical research there is then financial motivation to destroy them.
Reply:It's still murder either way. just cause were already killing children, why not go further? is that your point?
PLAYING GOD IN ANY FORM IS PURE EVIL !!!
Reply:Because it doesn't make the news.
Reply:I have an issue with it. I know several other people who do also. The sheer number's of abortion vs "this issue" puts it on the back burner but not off the stove...
http://www.prolifescranton.org/StemCellR...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Reply:And how about the tail-wagging, squirming little sperm cells shot into a Kleenex and thrown in the trash can?
Reply:There is outrage over those poor children being killed. If you allow them to be used for research we will simply be mourning for dead babies because people will create more embryos to meet their need for stem cells.
Researchers would be willing to pay that kind of money, especially if it was given to them by the government. It would be a small expense compared to the total cost of research and you would get a lot of embryos. So it isn't ridiculous, the left just wants you to think it is.
They are not buried.
They are not mourned.
There is no backlash of outrage from pro-lifers about those "babies."
When the SAME embryos are signed over by the people who own them to be used for medical research into stem cells... pro-lifers have a conniption.
Why?
Stem Cell Research and Pro-Lifers: Where is the righteous indignation for the embryos burned as medical waste
I love it how God always makes her way into the debate. Anyone ever heard of the first Amendment?
It's really sad that conservatives care more about some frozen cells then they do about people who are suffering. Must be that compassionate conservatism hard at work
Reply:You people are idiots.
Embyros are not children.
Losing an embyro is not losing a baby.
They aren't alive.
We aren't even talking about a fetus at this stage.
Stem Cell research could lead to the curing of some many diseases.
The fact that you idiots would sentence people to death over potential babies makes me sick.
Reply:I think it's just not highlighted. I personally have a problem with that too.
Anyways, I think part of the outrage is that people have a problem with government funding of embryonic stem cell research.
*let me clarify...I don't like the idea of creating a ton of embryos and only "trying" a few. I don't know the facts like y'all but the idea of it doesn't work for me. I'm not saying I'm against fertility treatment or couples trying to be parents. (I hope that makes sense)
Reply:Because when used for medical research there is then financial motivation to destroy them.
Reply:It's still murder either way. just cause were already killing children, why not go further? is that your point?
PLAYING GOD IN ANY FORM IS PURE EVIL !!!
Reply:Because it doesn't make the news.
Reply:I have an issue with it. I know several other people who do also. The sheer number's of abortion vs "this issue" puts it on the back burner but not off the stove...
http://www.prolifescranton.org/StemCellR...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Reply:And how about the tail-wagging, squirming little sperm cells shot into a Kleenex and thrown in the trash can?
Reply:There is outrage over those poor children being killed. If you allow them to be used for research we will simply be mourning for dead babies because people will create more embryos to meet their need for stem cells.
Researchers would be willing to pay that kind of money, especially if it was given to them by the government. It would be a small expense compared to the total cost of research and you would get a lot of embryos. So it isn't ridiculous, the left just wants you to think it is.
How do i donate my body for medical school research at time of my death?
i would like to know details of cadaver donations to medical school in Texas preferably
How do i donate my body for medical school research at time of my death?
http://www.ehow.com/how_110893_donate-bo...
lifequestanatomical.com
I am a firm believer in otgan/tissue donations as well as cadaver donations. I have included 2 links for you on procedures. Lifequest also has a form you can download to sign. I have my license checked, and I carry a donor card. Bless you.
Reply:well you can make a will and state that you would like your body to be donated to the Texas college for study
Reply:You should contact your local medical examiners (coroners) office and ask them what the procedures are.
Make sure you update your will as well .
Reply:Check the box on your driver's license, but also make good and damn sure that those who will be responsible for your remains (spouse, parents, etc.) are crystal clear on your intentions.
Reply:Contact a medical college. Sometimes they don't want or need the bodies. But the best way is to have a living will and make sure that your family knows where you keep it.
Reply:Why wait? Just head on down to the medical school and offer your body. But if you just HAVE to wait, why not check that box on your driver's license form?
Reply:Contact the school, they will tell you. You probably have to sign some forms or some type of waiver.
Reply:write it in your will , I'm sure it will be done for you
braces for teeth
How do i donate my body for medical school research at time of my death?
http://www.ehow.com/how_110893_donate-bo...
lifequestanatomical.com
I am a firm believer in otgan/tissue donations as well as cadaver donations. I have included 2 links for you on procedures. Lifequest also has a form you can download to sign. I have my license checked, and I carry a donor card. Bless you.
Reply:well you can make a will and state that you would like your body to be donated to the Texas college for study
Reply:You should contact your local medical examiners (coroners) office and ask them what the procedures are.
Make sure you update your will as well .
Reply:Check the box on your driver's license, but also make good and damn sure that those who will be responsible for your remains (spouse, parents, etc.) are crystal clear on your intentions.
Reply:Contact a medical college. Sometimes they don't want or need the bodies. But the best way is to have a living will and make sure that your family knows where you keep it.
Reply:Why wait? Just head on down to the medical school and offer your body. But if you just HAVE to wait, why not check that box on your driver's license form?
Reply:Contact the school, they will tell you. You probably have to sign some forms or some type of waiver.
Reply:write it in your will , I'm sure it will be done for you
braces for teeth
Can you advise someone to sign up at a medical research center?
The question is vague. No one signs up at a medical research center to be a guinea pig for any and all "experiments" that might be done on humans. It doesn't work that way.
If anyone wants to do human research, like on a newly invented medicine or a new treatment for one type of cancer, there is a legal set of procedures that must first be followed, included writing up the details of the plan, justification, review by an institutional research review board (consisting of different professionals like doctors, lawyers, ministers, lay people, ethicist), development of a simple and legal consent form for volunteers or patients, and then recruitment of screened applicants. You might then sign up for a specific experiment if you are an acceptable candidate.
Signing up is voluntary, and anyone who signs up is allowed to quit anytime they wish along the way. Such volunteers are invaluable and the only way to get approval of any advances in medicine.
I have been a human volunteer to test a new vaccine. I have worked with volunteers both in this country and overseas to test new medicines against malaria and other diseases. Yes, there is some personal risk, but the possibiulities of helping many others is a great high and need throughout the world.
If anyone wants to do human research, like on a newly invented medicine or a new treatment for one type of cancer, there is a legal set of procedures that must first be followed, included writing up the details of the plan, justification, review by an institutional research review board (consisting of different professionals like doctors, lawyers, ministers, lay people, ethicist), development of a simple and legal consent form for volunteers or patients, and then recruitment of screened applicants. You might then sign up for a specific experiment if you are an acceptable candidate.
Signing up is voluntary, and anyone who signs up is allowed to quit anytime they wish along the way. Such volunteers are invaluable and the only way to get approval of any advances in medicine.
I have been a human volunteer to test a new vaccine. I have worked with volunteers both in this country and overseas to test new medicines against malaria and other diseases. Yes, there is some personal risk, but the possibiulities of helping many others is a great high and need throughout the world.
Can a medical school graduate go into research and development? If so, what's the pay like?
I am currently a senior in high school and am considering a medical career. Next year, I'll be attending the University of Michigan College of Engineering. I am interested in medicine but I don't want to be a clinical doctor. I wouldn't mind a job like House, but what I really would want to do is medicine from an engineering prospective.
Can a medical school graduate go into research and development? If so, what's the pay like?
The usual route for someone who wants to do research is to get a PhD instead of a MD. The MD is a professional degree, while the PhD is a research degree (and actually considered a higher degree). Some schools offer combined MD-PhD.
On the whole, MDs probably make more money -- but PhDs in medical research will do pretty well.
teeth grinding guard
Can a medical school graduate go into research and development? If so, what's the pay like?
The usual route for someone who wants to do research is to get a PhD instead of a MD. The MD is a professional degree, while the PhD is a research degree (and actually considered a higher degree). Some schools offer combined MD-PhD.
On the whole, MDs probably make more money -- but PhDs in medical research will do pretty well.
teeth grinding guard
Do physician investigators treat patients AND conduct medical research?
What do physician investigators/physician scientists/clinical researchers/etc. do?
Do physician investigators treat patients AND conduct medical research?
They have to get the consent first.
Do physician investigators treat patients AND conduct medical research?
They have to get the consent first.
What is the address for Medical Research Council Laboratories, Fajen, Gambia?
Here:
Physical Address
Medical Research Council Laboratories
Atlantic Boulevard
Fajara
The Gambia
Postal Address
Medical Research Council
PO Box 273, Banjul
The Gambia
Telephone (Switchboard)
Tel: (+220) 4495442/6 or 4494072/9
Fax : Administration (+220) 4495919
http://www.mrc.gm/
What is the address for Medical Research Council Laboratories, Fajen, Gambia?
http://www.mrc.gm/
Physical Address
Medical Research Council Laboratories
Atlantic Boulevard
Fajara
The Gambia
Postal Address
Medical Research Council
PO Box 273, Banjul
The Gambia
Telephone (Switchboard)
Tel: (+220) 4495442/6 or 4494072/9
Fax : Administration (+220) 4495919
http://www.mrc.gm/
What is the address for Medical Research Council Laboratories, Fajen, Gambia?
http://www.mrc.gm/
Anything negetive about medical research study?
I want to do it, and signed up already, but my friends keep telling me not to, they say I will have big side effects later in life, and I never know what will they put in my system. the study is for diabeties and obesity
Anything negetive about medical research study?
a legitimate scientific study will reveal to you what you were taking. They usually won't do that until the study is completed so if it is a longitudinal study of several years or more you won't know for a while. Usually one pill is a dummy or "sugar pill" or placebo and one is the trial drug. If it is a double blind neither you nor the reasearcher knows for sure what you are getting until the end. Of course there is always some risk when you start taking a new medicine and so good scientific studies have a way to find out what you are taking (usually by a number or code system) right in the middle of the study in case you have some negative reaction.
Reply:I suggest that you don't do it. Medical science treats symptoms. Eastern medicine treats causes.
Anything negetive about medical research study?
a legitimate scientific study will reveal to you what you were taking. They usually won't do that until the study is completed so if it is a longitudinal study of several years or more you won't know for a while. Usually one pill is a dummy or "sugar pill" or placebo and one is the trial drug. If it is a double blind neither you nor the reasearcher knows for sure what you are getting until the end. Of course there is always some risk when you start taking a new medicine and so good scientific studies have a way to find out what you are taking (usually by a number or code system) right in the middle of the study in case you have some negative reaction.
Reply:I suggest that you don't do it. Medical science treats symptoms. Eastern medicine treats causes.
Anyone taken part in any San Diego medical research trials?
Yes!
Most pay big money if you qualify.
Found a new website that has information about medical research studies.
http://www.medical-research-study-direct...
http://www.medical-research-study-direct...
http://www.web-site-award-winning.com/ad...
hotels
Most pay big money if you qualify.
Found a new website that has information about medical research studies.
http://www.medical-research-study-direct...
http://www.medical-research-study-direct...
http://www.web-site-award-winning.com/ad...
hotels
Does anyone have any medical or psychological research or reasoning behind the cause of foot fetishes?
What might having an obsession with feet mean?
Does anyone have any medical or psychological research or reasoning behind the cause of foot fetishes?
One explanation, advanced by neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, highlights the fact that the feet and the genitals occupy adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two. Similarly, Reflexology is the practice of stimulating points on the feet to process this crosstalk.
A somewhat more Freudian hypothesis is that in many cultures, an infant's experience of its mother may involve crawling around her feet. If sexual/behavioral imprinting occurs during this time, this might lead to the feet becoming the primary object of sexual arousal. The human brain somehow attributes the feet to hold sexual properties according to Freud.
Another theory is that the shape of the human foot is visually similar to that of the curves and cleavage found on the body of the human female, particularly the female hips and buttocks. The average foot is composed almost entirely of curves; the top of the foot, the tips and bottoms of the toes, balls of the toes, instep, heel, ankle, soles, and toenails are often all curved, making the foot one of the curviest parts of the human body. In much the same way that breasts, buttocks, or hips are often considered attractive because of their curves, so too can the foot be regarded as an object of sexual desire. This would explain why so many foot fetishists are aroused by watching a barefoot girl with dirty soles, as the dust highlights the curves, the shape of the female feet by leaving only the arches clean.
Yet another theory proposes that visually, the feet and genitals and breast occupy the same space within the sexual visual field and the male, during coitus (missionary) utilize this 'sexual trigger' to enhance reproduction. Some males may be genetically brain imprinted to find parts of the body within that field as erotic. The female face, breast, legs and feet can all be seen during lovemaking in this position.
Another possible theory behind foot-fetishism could be rooted in the idea that a persons feet are usually hidden, much in the same manner as genitalia or a woman's breasts. Suddenly exposed feet could hypothetically produce a feeling of pleasure in the same way that exposed breasts could. A female, in the initial stages of undress for a romantic encounter, usually removes her shoes first. Perhaps launching a visually erotic chain reaction, allowing the male to perform during reproduction.
Another possible theory is that it is a part of the body that has an odor. Feet have many sweat glands which produce (theoretically) the same pheromones (chemical signals) which are produced by genitalia. Therefore they both invoke sexual arousal in the opposite sex.
Still another theory is that some men (not all) who adore feet are submissive to women. This would imply that the male is NOT a true 'fetishist' and is aroused, rather, by simply his humiliating role in the relationship. On the other hand there is another look on the domination which is attributed to a foot fetishist (interepreted in Jungian and Adler manner). Legs serve as a support for a body. A human is strong when he stands on both feet. Foot fetishist can reach soles of other person only by changing persons position to submissive and weak. Thus foot fetishist expresses his superiority feelings by controlling other person.
Reply:Whoa.. I've heard that around the foot area there's this nerve that has something to do with sexual feelings. Can't exactely remember though.
Reply:it might mean that the person in question got kicked a lot as a child and really enjoyed it
Reply:have had a serious foot fetish since about the 4th grade if i can remember correctly. i know my sister has a show fetish and use to tease me about feet when i was little, really little. i think that had something to do with where it came from with me. im into almost all aspects of foot fetish besides the weird stuff like kicking and crap. if u ask me its so sensual and forplay like. women get great pleasure and satisfaction from it. it can go anywhere from a sensual foot massage to footjobs. its all tied together. but the women has to be open about her feet and has to have nice sexy feet. im not into all feet. just sexy female feet that are not hobbit looking. i generally do not like short stubby sausage like toes, huge turn off for me. long slender toes, with a nice high arch, soft soles and tan feet and the best.
Reply:Lots of theories and no answers. Perhaps congenital.
Reply:this isn't research based, but from my reading about Chinese foot binding, I know part of the interest for men who admired bound feet was that the resulting shape reminded them of their male "member." So maybe the relation of the foot to a phallic shape on a subconscious level is to blame.
Reply:well scientist arent 100% sure but in the middle of the brain is were we get the signal to be aroused and its also were we process signals from our eyes etc. they think that some how signal get crossed and thats why we find them attractive.i personally hate ugly girl feet and i cant stand guy feet altogether.
Does anyone have any medical or psychological research or reasoning behind the cause of foot fetishes?
One explanation, advanced by neurologist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, highlights the fact that the feet and the genitals occupy adjacent areas of the somatosensory cortex, possibly entailing some neural crosstalk between the two. Similarly, Reflexology is the practice of stimulating points on the feet to process this crosstalk.
A somewhat more Freudian hypothesis is that in many cultures, an infant's experience of its mother may involve crawling around her feet. If sexual/behavioral imprinting occurs during this time, this might lead to the feet becoming the primary object of sexual arousal. The human brain somehow attributes the feet to hold sexual properties according to Freud.
Another theory is that the shape of the human foot is visually similar to that of the curves and cleavage found on the body of the human female, particularly the female hips and buttocks. The average foot is composed almost entirely of curves; the top of the foot, the tips and bottoms of the toes, balls of the toes, instep, heel, ankle, soles, and toenails are often all curved, making the foot one of the curviest parts of the human body. In much the same way that breasts, buttocks, or hips are often considered attractive because of their curves, so too can the foot be regarded as an object of sexual desire. This would explain why so many foot fetishists are aroused by watching a barefoot girl with dirty soles, as the dust highlights the curves, the shape of the female feet by leaving only the arches clean.
Yet another theory proposes that visually, the feet and genitals and breast occupy the same space within the sexual visual field and the male, during coitus (missionary) utilize this 'sexual trigger' to enhance reproduction. Some males may be genetically brain imprinted to find parts of the body within that field as erotic. The female face, breast, legs and feet can all be seen during lovemaking in this position.
Another possible theory behind foot-fetishism could be rooted in the idea that a persons feet are usually hidden, much in the same manner as genitalia or a woman's breasts. Suddenly exposed feet could hypothetically produce a feeling of pleasure in the same way that exposed breasts could. A female, in the initial stages of undress for a romantic encounter, usually removes her shoes first. Perhaps launching a visually erotic chain reaction, allowing the male to perform during reproduction.
Another possible theory is that it is a part of the body that has an odor. Feet have many sweat glands which produce (theoretically) the same pheromones (chemical signals) which are produced by genitalia. Therefore they both invoke sexual arousal in the opposite sex.
Still another theory is that some men (not all) who adore feet are submissive to women. This would imply that the male is NOT a true 'fetishist' and is aroused, rather, by simply his humiliating role in the relationship. On the other hand there is another look on the domination which is attributed to a foot fetishist (interepreted in Jungian and Adler manner). Legs serve as a support for a body. A human is strong when he stands on both feet. Foot fetishist can reach soles of other person only by changing persons position to submissive and weak. Thus foot fetishist expresses his superiority feelings by controlling other person.
Reply:Whoa.. I've heard that around the foot area there's this nerve that has something to do with sexual feelings. Can't exactely remember though.
Reply:it might mean that the person in question got kicked a lot as a child and really enjoyed it
Reply:have had a serious foot fetish since about the 4th grade if i can remember correctly. i know my sister has a show fetish and use to tease me about feet when i was little, really little. i think that had something to do with where it came from with me. im into almost all aspects of foot fetish besides the weird stuff like kicking and crap. if u ask me its so sensual and forplay like. women get great pleasure and satisfaction from it. it can go anywhere from a sensual foot massage to footjobs. its all tied together. but the women has to be open about her feet and has to have nice sexy feet. im not into all feet. just sexy female feet that are not hobbit looking. i generally do not like short stubby sausage like toes, huge turn off for me. long slender toes, with a nice high arch, soft soles and tan feet and the best.
Reply:Lots of theories and no answers. Perhaps congenital.
Reply:this isn't research based, but from my reading about Chinese foot binding, I know part of the interest for men who admired bound feet was that the resulting shape reminded them of their male "member." So maybe the relation of the foot to a phallic shape on a subconscious level is to blame.
Reply:well scientist arent 100% sure but in the middle of the brain is were we get the signal to be aroused and its also were we process signals from our eyes etc. they think that some how signal get crossed and thats why we find them attractive.i personally hate ugly girl feet and i cant stand guy feet altogether.
What is a catchy title for a research paper about medical doctors?
what are you researching?
i think you should figure out what your paper is gonna be about first before coming up with a title...
What is a catchy title for a research paper about medical doctors?
The 411 on MDs
or
The truth about MDs
i think you should figure out what your paper is gonna be about first before coming up with a title...
What is a catchy title for a research paper about medical doctors?
The 411 on MDs
or
The truth about MDs
What is the best college I can go to for the field of medical and biological research?
It depends on where in the world exactly.
In Canada it's Mcgill or Toronto
In the US it's Harvard, John Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia.
In London it's St. George Medical School, Queen Mary (UCL),
What is the best college I can go to for the field of medical and biological research?
Tufts or Harvard
In Canada it's Mcgill or Toronto
In the US it's Harvard, John Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, and Columbia.
In London it's St. George Medical School, Queen Mary (UCL),
What is the best college I can go to for the field of medical and biological research?
Tufts or Harvard
Is it ethical to use Nazi science to further medical research?
Say for instance the cure for cancer or aids was contained within the medical research of a Nazi like regime. A place where citizens are unwillingly experimented on sometimes with lethal results. Should we benefit from that kind of research or should we bury it with the victims.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.h...
Is it ethical to use Nazi science to further medical research?
If the research can save potentially millions of other lives, then it would be unethical to bury the cure for cancer. Then dedicate the cure to those who lost their lives.
Reply:Great question, tough dilemma, despite the fact that all the answers (so far) support using the knowledge. I also support using it, but with more qualification than most people so far.
Your question was the subject of a Star Trek Voyager episode called "Nothing Human". The TV.com summary describes it as follows, "When an alien attaches itself to B'Elanna's nervous system, the Doctor enlists the help of a holographic recreation of the Cardassian Dr. Crell Mossett. She refuses all treatment when the Bajoran crew informs her that this doctor was responsible for sadistic war crimes during the occupation."
This episode deals sensitively and at length with the dilemma you ask about. Interestingly, Captain Janeway decides AGAINST using the medical knowledge (at least, that's what I remember). If you get a chance, see the episode.
I still think the knowledge should be used, because, as some of the answerers say:
1. the knowledge itself is not bad
2. putting it to good use seems a better way to "un-taint" it.
But one difficulty not mentioned is this: there are always evil or opportunistic people in the world who would do anything to make a buck or become famous, and they won't balk at experimentation, abuse, or anything to get what they want. Using knowledge gained from Nazi war crimes sends the wrong message, and makes it harder to dissuade the evil opportunists in the future.
It a tough choice, but whatever choice we make says something about who we are.
SPREAD LOVE!
:)
Reply:I say use the information. Let some good come out of a horrible horrible time.
Reply:The word Nazi and Ethical are contradictory as it is!
Reply:no it isn't. We should not forget the experimentation took place, but it would be unethical to knowingly profit from such needless suffering, especially if somebody got the bright idea to duplicate the experiments to prove the results were't a fluke....
Reply:You ask a loaded question and a good one. I tend to agree with your other answerers on this. Those who were used a guinea pigs for such tests shouldn't have to die in vain. Even though their lives were short lived due to the monsterous hands of the Nazi regime, what the outcome of what they endured should go forward as a legacy for the rest. I think the victims would see it the same way themselves. I might not be here to see my great grandchild, but if he was ailing with something and I was tortured with tests in the name of science of sickos, I would still want him to benefit from what was discovered.
Reply:I disagree
I doubt the "scientific results" of Nazi experiments. I think the "results" were a bunch of lies to satisfy their ideology.
The science is made by mind and intelligence and not by barbaric means.
There should be other methods and the science today reached high levels compared with that time.
Reply:I would go for yes.
I have read the article by the way.
If they had actually discovered something like a cancer treatment which would help a billion people, I would say : use it.
I don't suffer from any terrible disease, or any for that matter but I can imagine if I had something like MS or Tourette syndrome or whatever and my life was hell : I would take the medecine they found.
However ethical or unethical it would have been obtained in the first place, if it would help million more people......why not. (my opinion).
Of course, a matter which cannot absolutely compare with the Nazi's lab experiment.....but think of all the people screaming on behalf of animals' right and yet wear leather boots and coats, purses ??
All those beauty creams, products, various medecines which were tested on animals.
Am repeating again : this does not compare with the suffering of human beings of course.
Makes me think also of all the controversy of stem cells experiments........
Reply:The people would have died in vain then, with their medical research contributions, they live on.
Reply:The 'science' itself isn't evil, it's the means of testing and deploying it that is.
Trying to cure cancer is not evil, but unwillingly using it on people to see if it works pretty much is, ESPECIALLY if it is lethal.
Reply:i was unwillingly experimented on every time my third wife cooked and there was no great societal benefit in that case so yes i think the end justifies the means in force feeding inmates, the poor, the elderly, and generally anyone i don't like with experimental drugs that might cure cancer or grow ginormous breasts on women...
Reply:If it wasn't for research done by German scientists, you probably wouldn't be alive to ask the question.
Reply:I think the main issue would be this; If nazi Germany was as steeped in propoganda as it would appear then it stands to reason that the results of any experiment would be suspect in that the results could have been doctored to suit public opinion. Any regime with such a terrible approach to ethics and such a totalitarian agenda would have to have their empiricism called into question. If it is still valid and useful then yes, the results should be used. If nothing else as a legacy to their victims. Denying the results of their suffering would be tantamount to the erasions that routinely went on during that era.
Very intersing Q, thanks
Reply:Of course...We used American Nuclear science to further spread nuclear energy to third world countries.
Reply:I always thought that we should pay poor countries to experiment on the people. And pay the people too.
Reply:Once the knowledge is gained, is outthere for everybody to use it. I don't think they have IP claims on that!
Reply:Ethics can be said to be created by the culture of the time. The culture of this time is blameless in the Nazi attrocities. We have no blood on our hands. We have a mountain of information and history from that time period, some of it valuable and some of it horrific. I would say that by ignoring the possible cure for cancer in the question, we would have blood on our hands, but I am sure that the individual patients would all have individual choices to make. A second question would be "Should they have the right to know where the research originated?"
Reply:use it or those people died in vain
Reply:If it has already been done then we might as well gain as much good from those atrocities as we can. We should not, however, conduct such experiments again.
Reply:We should use it.Not saying that any good came out killing millions of people but why not use that knolwedge for good to save lives.Unfortunatly most of the human race development came out of either war or want to have the best weapons.E.g nucluar technology,drugs to make people stay stronger for longer in a war.This about this most of what we know today about medicine we know from diesease.
Reply:The knowledge should be saved, lest the victims die in vain.
Reply:Use it of course in the same manner that we use Nuclear technology today after the Americans murdered 250,000 innocent Japanese women, children and elderly in Hiroshima and Nagosaki with the Atom Bombs in 1945.
tooth bleaching
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.h...
Is it ethical to use Nazi science to further medical research?
If the research can save potentially millions of other lives, then it would be unethical to bury the cure for cancer. Then dedicate the cure to those who lost their lives.
Reply:Great question, tough dilemma, despite the fact that all the answers (so far) support using the knowledge. I also support using it, but with more qualification than most people so far.
Your question was the subject of a Star Trek Voyager episode called "Nothing Human". The TV.com summary describes it as follows, "When an alien attaches itself to B'Elanna's nervous system, the Doctor enlists the help of a holographic recreation of the Cardassian Dr. Crell Mossett. She refuses all treatment when the Bajoran crew informs her that this doctor was responsible for sadistic war crimes during the occupation."
This episode deals sensitively and at length with the dilemma you ask about. Interestingly, Captain Janeway decides AGAINST using the medical knowledge (at least, that's what I remember). If you get a chance, see the episode.
I still think the knowledge should be used, because, as some of the answerers say:
1. the knowledge itself is not bad
2. putting it to good use seems a better way to "un-taint" it.
But one difficulty not mentioned is this: there are always evil or opportunistic people in the world who would do anything to make a buck or become famous, and they won't balk at experimentation, abuse, or anything to get what they want. Using knowledge gained from Nazi war crimes sends the wrong message, and makes it harder to dissuade the evil opportunists in the future.
It a tough choice, but whatever choice we make says something about who we are.
SPREAD LOVE!
:)
Reply:I say use the information. Let some good come out of a horrible horrible time.
Reply:The word Nazi and Ethical are contradictory as it is!
Reply:no it isn't. We should not forget the experimentation took place, but it would be unethical to knowingly profit from such needless suffering, especially if somebody got the bright idea to duplicate the experiments to prove the results were't a fluke....
Reply:You ask a loaded question and a good one. I tend to agree with your other answerers on this. Those who were used a guinea pigs for such tests shouldn't have to die in vain. Even though their lives were short lived due to the monsterous hands of the Nazi regime, what the outcome of what they endured should go forward as a legacy for the rest. I think the victims would see it the same way themselves. I might not be here to see my great grandchild, but if he was ailing with something and I was tortured with tests in the name of science of sickos, I would still want him to benefit from what was discovered.
Reply:I disagree
I doubt the "scientific results" of Nazi experiments. I think the "results" were a bunch of lies to satisfy their ideology.
The science is made by mind and intelligence and not by barbaric means.
There should be other methods and the science today reached high levels compared with that time.
Reply:I would go for yes.
I have read the article by the way.
If they had actually discovered something like a cancer treatment which would help a billion people, I would say : use it.
I don't suffer from any terrible disease, or any for that matter but I can imagine if I had something like MS or Tourette syndrome or whatever and my life was hell : I would take the medecine they found.
However ethical or unethical it would have been obtained in the first place, if it would help million more people......why not. (my opinion).
Of course, a matter which cannot absolutely compare with the Nazi's lab experiment.....but think of all the people screaming on behalf of animals' right and yet wear leather boots and coats, purses ??
All those beauty creams, products, various medecines which were tested on animals.
Am repeating again : this does not compare with the suffering of human beings of course.
Makes me think also of all the controversy of stem cells experiments........
Reply:The people would have died in vain then, with their medical research contributions, they live on.
Reply:The 'science' itself isn't evil, it's the means of testing and deploying it that is.
Trying to cure cancer is not evil, but unwillingly using it on people to see if it works pretty much is, ESPECIALLY if it is lethal.
Reply:i was unwillingly experimented on every time my third wife cooked and there was no great societal benefit in that case so yes i think the end justifies the means in force feeding inmates, the poor, the elderly, and generally anyone i don't like with experimental drugs that might cure cancer or grow ginormous breasts on women...
Reply:If it wasn't for research done by German scientists, you probably wouldn't be alive to ask the question.
Reply:I think the main issue would be this; If nazi Germany was as steeped in propoganda as it would appear then it stands to reason that the results of any experiment would be suspect in that the results could have been doctored to suit public opinion. Any regime with such a terrible approach to ethics and such a totalitarian agenda would have to have their empiricism called into question. If it is still valid and useful then yes, the results should be used. If nothing else as a legacy to their victims. Denying the results of their suffering would be tantamount to the erasions that routinely went on during that era.
Very intersing Q, thanks
Reply:Of course...We used American Nuclear science to further spread nuclear energy to third world countries.
Reply:I always thought that we should pay poor countries to experiment on the people. And pay the people too.
Reply:Once the knowledge is gained, is outthere for everybody to use it. I don't think they have IP claims on that!
Reply:Ethics can be said to be created by the culture of the time. The culture of this time is blameless in the Nazi attrocities. We have no blood on our hands. We have a mountain of information and history from that time period, some of it valuable and some of it horrific. I would say that by ignoring the possible cure for cancer in the question, we would have blood on our hands, but I am sure that the individual patients would all have individual choices to make. A second question would be "Should they have the right to know where the research originated?"
Reply:use it or those people died in vain
Reply:If it has already been done then we might as well gain as much good from those atrocities as we can. We should not, however, conduct such experiments again.
Reply:We should use it.Not saying that any good came out killing millions of people but why not use that knolwedge for good to save lives.Unfortunatly most of the human race development came out of either war or want to have the best weapons.E.g nucluar technology,drugs to make people stay stronger for longer in a war.This about this most of what we know today about medicine we know from diesease.
Reply:The knowledge should be saved, lest the victims die in vain.
Reply:Use it of course in the same manner that we use Nuclear technology today after the Americans murdered 250,000 innocent Japanese women, children and elderly in Hiroshima and Nagosaki with the Atom Bombs in 1945.
tooth bleaching
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, and correct me if I’m wrong, but so many diseases were cured in the first half of the last century with so much less technology than we have today.
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I think your absolutely correct, and i'm usually the first one to knock some sense into a goofy conspiracy theorist :)
Reply:Yes they want to find a cure.
I guess you didn't think that maybe the easy to cure diseases were cured first.
The easy things are always the first things. You may as well ask why it takes so long to build a modern 100+ story skyscraper when in the past they could build 5 story buildings in much shorter time.
Reply:No. The plan is to TREAT disease. Not CURE disease. No money in cures.
Reply:No.
Reply:Yes, they do. The individual scientist, and the company working on the cure would love to have his fame and fortune forever etched in history as the ones who cured whatever.
They would make more money curing it than they will treating it. Imagine if every person had to take the aids cure like a vaccine. Thats alot more doses than the small % of the population that gets infected. And if it was curable people would not try avoding it so they could treat more people and many more than once just like we do ghonorhea and syphyllus today.
The reason we had success with so many diseases in the past century, was that all those diseases were similar, and thus similarly treated. Most were bacteria, treated with antibiotics. Others were simple viruses and treated with vaccines. What is left are the diseases that attack the body differently and thus must have new types of cures.
Reply:No, there is no money in cures,,,and that is ALL they care about.!!!!!
Reply:No, it is not a conspirators theory at all, drug company's make billions off of sick people. I cannot speak of aids or cancer, never experienced it, however I can speak of diabetes's, If they found a cure for diabetes instead of treating it, they would lose billions. My drug bill alone is around $400 a month, multiply that by the 15 or 20 million people that are diagnosed in the U.S. and the many millions more globally and you can see why they never want to cure anything. It is another example of corporate greediness, but they have all the guns, the people have none and until it is not profitable they will continue to rape the people.
Reply:are you kidding me? DISEASES = DRUGS and DRUGS = MONEY. who'd want to give up a deal like that?
Reply:aids was a conspiracy to begin with dont even get me started!! the oklahoma city bombing years ago... they had the cure for aids in the basement. the cure for the same disease that they created!! initially the government created aids/hiv to stop homosexuality in the usa. but they failed! ahhhh u got me started to vent now... did u know that the princess diana died because she BLEED TO DEATH on the curb WAITING for medical attention?? she bleed out of a small vessel in the lung (pulmonary artery) over 2 hours!!!! they told her to "wait there princess!!" and thought she was just an intoxicated princess!! i'm in california, and the medical system here...we get ppl seriously injured in car accidents to the hosp and in the surgery room within one hour!!! if u get shot and you still alive... we will get u to operating room within an hour even if u go unconscious. ONE HOUR!! not sit there and bleed to death princess!!! ahhhhhh sorry lol
Do you think that the medical research and treatment INDUSTRY really want to find a cure for cancer or AIDS?
I think your absolutely correct, and i'm usually the first one to knock some sense into a goofy conspiracy theorist :)
Reply:Yes they want to find a cure.
I guess you didn't think that maybe the easy to cure diseases were cured first.
The easy things are always the first things. You may as well ask why it takes so long to build a modern 100+ story skyscraper when in the past they could build 5 story buildings in much shorter time.
Reply:No. The plan is to TREAT disease. Not CURE disease. No money in cures.
Reply:No.
Reply:Yes, they do. The individual scientist, and the company working on the cure would love to have his fame and fortune forever etched in history as the ones who cured whatever.
They would make more money curing it than they will treating it. Imagine if every person had to take the aids cure like a vaccine. Thats alot more doses than the small % of the population that gets infected. And if it was curable people would not try avoding it so they could treat more people and many more than once just like we do ghonorhea and syphyllus today.
The reason we had success with so many diseases in the past century, was that all those diseases were similar, and thus similarly treated. Most were bacteria, treated with antibiotics. Others were simple viruses and treated with vaccines. What is left are the diseases that attack the body differently and thus must have new types of cures.
Reply:No, there is no money in cures,,,and that is ALL they care about.!!!!!
Reply:No, it is not a conspirators theory at all, drug company's make billions off of sick people. I cannot speak of aids or cancer, never experienced it, however I can speak of diabetes's, If they found a cure for diabetes instead of treating it, they would lose billions. My drug bill alone is around $400 a month, multiply that by the 15 or 20 million people that are diagnosed in the U.S. and the many millions more globally and you can see why they never want to cure anything. It is another example of corporate greediness, but they have all the guns, the people have none and until it is not profitable they will continue to rape the people.
Reply:are you kidding me? DISEASES = DRUGS and DRUGS = MONEY. who'd want to give up a deal like that?
Reply:aids was a conspiracy to begin with dont even get me started!! the oklahoma city bombing years ago... they had the cure for aids in the basement. the cure for the same disease that they created!! initially the government created aids/hiv to stop homosexuality in the usa. but they failed! ahhhh u got me started to vent now... did u know that the princess diana died because she BLEED TO DEATH on the curb WAITING for medical attention?? she bleed out of a small vessel in the lung (pulmonary artery) over 2 hours!!!! they told her to "wait there princess!!" and thought she was just an intoxicated princess!! i'm in california, and the medical system here...we get ppl seriously injured in car accidents to the hosp and in the surgery room within one hour!!! if u get shot and you still alive... we will get u to operating room within an hour even if u go unconscious. ONE HOUR!! not sit there and bleed to death princess!!! ahhhhhh sorry lol
Entry Level Salary Range for Medical Research Assistant NYC?
medical researcher, NYC teaching hospitals, salary range for research assistant who is actually helping to design experiments testing high-tech biofeedback therapies?
Entry Level Salary Range for Medical Research Assistant NYC?
The salary/remuneration for a particular job is the market value for a particular profession and designation at the city/town where the office is located. Job postings at websites like Monster, Yahoo HotJobs and Careerbuilder carry information about salaries. The Govt Dept of Labor, (www.bls.gov) Bureau of statistics has information about median salaries for different professions and details of additional compensation offered. Other online resources are salary.com and payscale. Your salary will also depend on your educational qualification and how you handle your career. More details and links to relevant websites available at http://tinyurl.com/rndxq
Reply:On the website www.findacareerhere.com there is a salary calculator that tells you salary and also gives you a job description. Hope this helps.
Entry Level Salary Range for Medical Research Assistant NYC?
The salary/remuneration for a particular job is the market value for a particular profession and designation at the city/town where the office is located. Job postings at websites like Monster, Yahoo HotJobs and Careerbuilder carry information about salaries. The Govt Dept of Labor, (www.bls.gov) Bureau of statistics has information about median salaries for different professions and details of additional compensation offered. Other online resources are salary.com and payscale. Your salary will also depend on your educational qualification and how you handle your career. More details and links to relevant websites available at http://tinyurl.com/rndxq
Reply:On the website www.findacareerhere.com there is a salary calculator that tells you salary and also gives you a job description. Hope this helps.
Who supports medical research using vivisection?
Would you use a product derived through vivisection, in order to save or improve life?
Who supports medical research using vivisection?
i support any research as long it saves a life
have perfect teeth
Who supports medical research using vivisection?
i support any research as long it saves a life
have perfect teeth
Why should medical researchers spend billions of dollars on research if noone will listen?
Why do people want to believe they can cook up home remedies or cure serious illness with vitamins when there is so much work and research being done to come up with actual concrete answers to medical problems?
Why should medical researchers spend billions of dollars on research if noone will listen?
Several reasons..
Doctors are expensive..
Some people are hypochondriacs..
Some people are afraid of Doctors..
Some illnesses are not treatable / curable by real medicine so
drowning people will grasp at straws..
Reply:From your question I can't tell if you are for or against medical research........
Reply:Oh, there are plenty of people listening! For example, Bayer’s pain pill Aspirin is now taken by 50 million healthy US citizens under the illusion it will prevent heart attacks. Home remedies have been around for thousands of years. Did you know that In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States Pharmacopoeia, the nation's official drug reference book, was filled with herbs, reflecting their widespread use in America. When drug manufacturers realized, around the time of World War II, that patentable synthetic molecules promised much bigger profits, herbal research diminished, and medicinal plants were all but forgotten.
Drugs merely mask symptoms while avoiding the curing or elimination of diseases. This explains why most prescription drugs marketed today have no proven efficacy and merely target symptoms.
Another key strategy to expand pharmaceutical markets is to cause new diseases with drugs. While merely masking symptoms short term, most of the prescription drugs taken by millions of patients today cause a multitude of new diseases as a result of their known long-term side effects. For example, all cholesterol-lowering drugs currently on the market are known to increase the risk of developing cancer – but only after the patient has been taking the drug for several years.
The known deadly side effects of prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world, surpassed only by the number of deaths from heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998). This fact is no surprise either, because drug patents are primarily issued for new synthetic molecules. All synthetic molecules need to be detoxified and eliminated from the body, a system that frequently fails and results in an epidemic of severe and deadly side effects.
Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that optimize cellular metabolism threaten the pharmaceutical “business with disease” because they target the cellular cause of today’s most common diseases - and these natural substances cannot be patented.
Throughout the more than one hundred year existence of the pharmaceutical industry, vitamins and other essential nutrients, with defined functions as cofactors in cellular metabolism, have been the fiercest competition and the greatest threat to the long-term success of the pharmaceutical investment business.
The pharmaceutical “business with disease” is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product “health” promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the “products” most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death.
Due to people eating more processed, contaminated foods, their poor diets, and lack of exercise, they are getting sicker and sicker. If they would only stick to foods that the earth provides, they would be much better off. We believe vitamins, minerals and herbs do our bodies good because we have been using them for years and years and feel great! We have no use for pharmaceuticals, thank you.
Why should medical researchers spend billions of dollars on research if noone will listen?
Several reasons..
Doctors are expensive..
Some people are hypochondriacs..
Some people are afraid of Doctors..
Some illnesses are not treatable / curable by real medicine so
drowning people will grasp at straws..
Reply:From your question I can't tell if you are for or against medical research........
Reply:Oh, there are plenty of people listening! For example, Bayer’s pain pill Aspirin is now taken by 50 million healthy US citizens under the illusion it will prevent heart attacks. Home remedies have been around for thousands of years. Did you know that In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States Pharmacopoeia, the nation's official drug reference book, was filled with herbs, reflecting their widespread use in America. When drug manufacturers realized, around the time of World War II, that patentable synthetic molecules promised much bigger profits, herbal research diminished, and medicinal plants were all but forgotten.
Drugs merely mask symptoms while avoiding the curing or elimination of diseases. This explains why most prescription drugs marketed today have no proven efficacy and merely target symptoms.
Another key strategy to expand pharmaceutical markets is to cause new diseases with drugs. While merely masking symptoms short term, most of the prescription drugs taken by millions of patients today cause a multitude of new diseases as a result of their known long-term side effects. For example, all cholesterol-lowering drugs currently on the market are known to increase the risk of developing cancer – but only after the patient has been taking the drug for several years.
The known deadly side effects of prescription drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in the industrialized world, surpassed only by the number of deaths from heart attacks, cancer and strokes (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998). This fact is no surprise either, because drug patents are primarily issued for new synthetic molecules. All synthetic molecules need to be detoxified and eliminated from the body, a system that frequently fails and results in an epidemic of severe and deadly side effects.
Vitamins and other effective natural health therapies that optimize cellular metabolism threaten the pharmaceutical “business with disease” because they target the cellular cause of today’s most common diseases - and these natural substances cannot be patented.
Throughout the more than one hundred year existence of the pharmaceutical industry, vitamins and other essential nutrients, with defined functions as cofactors in cellular metabolism, have been the fiercest competition and the greatest threat to the long-term success of the pharmaceutical investment business.
The pharmaceutical “business with disease” is the largest deception and fraud business in human history. The product “health” promised by drug companies is not delivered to millions of patients. Instead, the “products” most often delivered are the opposite: new diseases and frequently, death.
Due to people eating more processed, contaminated foods, their poor diets, and lack of exercise, they are getting sicker and sicker. If they would only stick to foods that the earth provides, they would be much better off. We believe vitamins, minerals and herbs do our bodies good because we have been using them for years and years and feel great! We have no use for pharmaceuticals, thank you.
Why do politician Allocate less money for medical research but they Allocate more money for war machines?
Do you think they should allocate more money for medical research centers where peoples life is saved.I think so many
medical research center are run by the charity work.I am not
against charity work it is very good thing.Government should
pay more attention for medical research center as well and
allocate more money for medical research,so that they do not have to beg for money.
Why do politician Allocate less money for medical research but they Allocate more money for war machines?
Why do they do it? Here's the short answer. Because more people spend more time bitching about what is or isn't happening than actually doing something about it. Don't like it? Doesn't sound fair to me! So rally support and change things!
Reply:Why fix people when you can just kill them?
Reply:The return on investment from war is much faster and profitable!
Reply:sad but true the world we live in is lacking touch with reality .
Reply:agreed 100%
Reply:Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no more war? but since there is....................
Reply:BUSH / MUSH .... may give answer to this .
medical research center are run by the charity work.I am not
against charity work it is very good thing.Government should
pay more attention for medical research center as well and
allocate more money for medical research,so that they do not have to beg for money.
Why do politician Allocate less money for medical research but they Allocate more money for war machines?
Why do they do it? Here's the short answer. Because more people spend more time bitching about what is or isn't happening than actually doing something about it. Don't like it? Doesn't sound fair to me! So rally support and change things!
Reply:Why fix people when you can just kill them?
Reply:The return on investment from war is much faster and profitable!
Reply:sad but true the world we live in is lacking touch with reality .
Reply:agreed 100%
Reply:Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no more war? but since there is....................
Reply:BUSH / MUSH .... may give answer to this .
What is medical research coordinator?
what do they do exactly, whats part of their job description?
What is medical research coordinator?
That is kind of an ambiguous job title. Either it's a pretentious title for lab manager (in charge of ordering and maintaining lab supplies and equipment), or it's something you need a PhD to do.
Reply:He's he guy that throws the football
What is medical research coordinator?
That is kind of an ambiguous job title. Either it's a pretentious title for lab manager (in charge of ordering and maintaining lab supplies and equipment), or it's something you need a PhD to do.
Reply:He's he guy that throws the football
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or why not?
I mean, i kinda agree that they should; but at the same time it's kind of wrong.. what do you think?
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or why not?
Maybe for veterinary research, but not human. Animals react differently.
Reply:No we should use people. After all that is what the research is for......
Reply:yes and so should stem-cells.
medicine
Should animals be used for medical research? Why or why not?
Maybe for veterinary research, but not human. Animals react differently.
Reply:No we should use people. After all that is what the research is for......
Reply:yes and so should stem-cells.
medicine
Why do we use animal for medical research instead of useing humans for medical research?
i really need information for this for my ag class so please answer it as soon as possible.
Why do we use animal for medical research instead of useing humans for medical research?
I often thought the same thing like why not allow death row inmates to offer their services to the public by being used in medical experiments. The degree of severoity of the medical condition would have a direct bearing on the type of crime commited.
Reply:Actually, they start out with animals and when the animal survives, they try it on humans. It's bad enough that their are cases where human's are tested and the phrase is considered guinni pigs as silently said for research, and their very close to believing that whatever their using will work of humans. "Just pray you'll never have to be one of those"... Dr Checko... (Nickname)
Reply:because people are not willing to be used as research unless they are deceased...Animals are forced....
Why do we use animal for medical research instead of useing humans for medical research?
I often thought the same thing like why not allow death row inmates to offer their services to the public by being used in medical experiments. The degree of severoity of the medical condition would have a direct bearing on the type of crime commited.
Reply:Actually, they start out with animals and when the animal survives, they try it on humans. It's bad enough that their are cases where human's are tested and the phrase is considered guinni pigs as silently said for research, and their very close to believing that whatever their using will work of humans. "Just pray you'll never have to be one of those"... Dr Checko... (Nickname)
Reply:because people are not willing to be used as research unless they are deceased...Animals are forced....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)