#Primary Cell Culture

[omshinde5145]

Primary Cells Market Trends, Review, and Forecast 2024–2030

The Primary Cells Market was valued at USD 1.6 billion in 2023 and will surpass USD 3.1 billion by 2030; growing at a CAGR of 10.0% during 2024 - 2030. Primary cells, derived directly from living tissues, maintain the physiological relevance of human biology, making them invaluable in scientific research. Unlike immortalized cell lines, primary cells retain their unique characteristics, providing more accurate models for in vitro studies. This blog explores the key trends, growth drivers, opportunities, and challenges within the primary cells market.

Key Market Trends Driving Growth

Increasing Adoption in Drug Discovery and Development Pharmaceutical companies and research institutions are leveraging primary cells for drug screening and toxicity testing. These cells offer a more accurate prediction of drug responses compared to traditional cell lines. As personalized medicine gains momentum, primary cells enable more individualized and predictive models, allowing researchers to identify specific responses to therapeutic agents.

Advancements in 3D Cell Culture and Organoid Models One of the major trends in the primary cells market is the increasing use of 3D cell culture and organoid models. These advanced culture systems more closely mimic the structure and function of human tissues, offering an enhanced platform for studying disease progression, drug efficacy, and patient-specific therapies. The integration of primary cells into these models is expected to further accelerate research in fields such as oncology, neurology, and regenerative medicine.

Read More about Sample Report: https://intentmarketresearch.com/request-sample/primary-cells-market-3630.html

Growing Demand in Cancer Research Primary cells, especially cancer-associated cells such as tumor cells or cancer-associated fibroblasts, are crucial in cancer research. With the rising incidence of cancer, there is a pressing need for more accurate in vitro models that replicate the complex tumor microenvironment. Primary cancer cells, derived directly from patient tissues, are providing researchers with the tools to develop more effective therapies and understand tumor behavior better.

Expansion of Biobanking and Cryopreservation The expansion of biobanks and cryopreservation services is another major factor contributing to the market’s growth. Primary cell biobanks offer vast repositories of cells from diverse human populations, allowing researchers to study genetic variations and disease-specific models. With the increasing emphasis on precision medicine, the demand for high-quality, well-characterized primary cells has surged, enhancing the role of biobanks in supplying these valuable resources.

Opportunities in the Primary Cells Market

Rising Interest in Regenerative Medicine Regenerative medicine is poised to transform the treatment of various degenerative diseases, and primary cells play a key role in this revolution. Stem cells, a type of primary cell, have shown tremendous potential in regenerative therapies for conditions such as heart disease, neurological disorders, and diabetes. The growing pipeline of regenerative therapies represents a lucrative opportunity for companies specializing in primary cell production and related services.

Emerging Markets and Technological Innovations Emerging markets, particularly in Asia-Pacific and Latin America, are becoming attractive for key players in the primary cells market. The increasing healthcare investments, supportive government policies, and growing focus on biotechnology research in these regions are expected to fuel demand for primary cells. Additionally, technological innovations in cell isolation, culture, and cryopreservation techniques are likely to open new avenues for growth in the market.

Partnerships and Collaborations As the complexity of cellular research increases, partnerships between academic institutions, biotech companies, and pharmaceutical firms are becoming more common. Collaborations in areas such as cell sourcing, assay development, and therapeutic applications are enhancing the capabilities of market players. These partnerships are expected to drive innovation and accelerate the adoption of primary cell-based models in various industries.

Ask for Customization Report: https://intentmarketresearch.com/ask-for-customization/primary-cells-market-3630.html

Challenges Facing the Primary Cells Market

Limited Availability and High Costs One of the primary challenges in the market is the limited availability of certain types of primary cells, particularly those from rare or difficult-to-access tissues. The cost of isolating, culturing, and maintaining these cells can be prohibitively high, which can restrict their widespread adoption, especially in resource-constrained settings. Additionally, ethical concerns surrounding the sourcing of human tissues remain a challenge that needs to be carefully managed.

Variability and Short Lifespan Unlike immortalized cell lines, primary cells have a finite lifespan, and their characteristics can vary between donors. This variability can introduce challenges in reproducibility and consistency of experimental results, making it difficult to standardize protocols across different labs. While efforts to improve cell culture techniques and reduce variability are ongoing, this remains a significant obstacle for researchers.

Regulatory Hurdles As primary cells are increasingly used in drug development and regenerative therapies, navigating the complex regulatory landscape is becoming a key challenge. Regulatory bodies such as the FDA and EMA require stringent validation of cell-based models, which can delay the approval and commercialization of new therapies. Ensuring compliance with ethical standards for human tissue sourcing and use further complicates the regulatory process.

Conclusion

The primary cells market is poised for robust growth in the coming years, driven by advancements in personalized medicine, drug discovery, and regenerative therapies. The increasing adoption of 3D cell culture systems, expansion of biobanking, and the growing focus on cancer research are key trends shaping the market's future. However, challenges such as high costs, cell variability, and regulatory complexities must be addressed to unlock the full potential of primary cells. As technological innovations continue to emerge and collaborations expand, the primary cells market is set to play a pivotal role in the future of biomedical research and therapeutic development.

[kosheeka]

Role of Tissue Culture in the Study of Cancer

For the case of primary cancer cell cultures, fresh surgically resected tissue is used to develop ex vivo cell populations.  While the most widely used culture method for studying cancer, especially in preclinical assays employs the use of immortalized cell lines. However, the process of transformation makes the accuracy of these models questionable, and hence, whether the actual cancer behavior is represented by these models becomes a question.

[legendaryturtletheorist]

Understanding Cancer Cells: A Comprehensive Overview

Introduction:

Cancer cells are the fundamental units of cancer, a complex and diverse group of diseases that affect millions of people worldwide. In this article, we will delve into the intriguing world of cancer cells, exploring their characteristics, behavior, and significance in cancer development. Understanding these cellular villains is crucial for advancing our knowledge and improving treatment strategies for this devastating disease.

What are cancer cells?

Cancer cells are abnormal cells that grow and divide uncontrollably, evading the body's natural mechanisms of growth regulation. Unlike normal cells, which have a specific lifespan and perform specialized functions, cancer cells have altered genetic material that allows them to bypass these regulatory mechanisms. This enables them to proliferate rapidly and form tumors, disrupting the normal functioning of organs and tissues.

Characteristics of cancer cells:

Cancer cells possess several distinctive characteristics that set them apart from healthy cells:

a) Uncontrolled growth: Cancer cells divide rapidly and continuously, leading to the formation of a mass of abnormal cells known as a tumor.

b) Invasion and metastasis: Cancer cells can invade surrounding tissues and spread to distant sites through the bloodstream or lymphatic system, forming secondary tumors in a process called metastasis.

c) Genetic instability: Cancer cells often accumulate genetic mutations and alterations that drive their abnormal behavior, allowing them to evade cell death signals and promote uncontrolled growth.

d) Angiogenesis: Cancer cells have the ability to stimulate the formation of new blood vessels, ensuring a blood supply that supports their rapid growth and survival.

Origins of cancer cells:

Cancer cells can arise from various sources within the body:

a) Somatic mutations: These mutations occur in the DNA of normal, non-reproductive cells during a person's lifetime. Exposure to carcinogens, genetic predispositions, and environmental factors can contribute to the development of somatic mutations that lead to cancer.

b) Inherited mutations: In some cases, individuals inherit specific genetic mutations from their parents, which significantly increase their risk of developing certain types of cancer.

c) Stem cells: Stem cells, which have the capacity to differentiate into different cell types, can also give rise to cancer cell if they acquire genetic mutations that disrupt their normal regulation and behavior.

Importance of studying cancer cells:

Studying cancer cells plays a vital role in advancing our understanding of cancer and developing effective treatment approaches. Some key reasons include:

a) Targeted therapies: By examining the specific genetic and molecular characteristics of cancer cells, researchers can develop targeted therapies that selectively attack cancer cells while minimizing damage to healthy cells.

b) Early detection: Understanding the unique features of cancer cells helps in the development of early detection methods, enabling prompt intervention and improved patient outcomes.

c) Personalized medicine: Analyzing the genetic makeup of cancer cells can aid in tailoring treatments to individual patients, optimizing efficacy and reducing side effects.

d) Biomarkers: Identifying specific molecules or genetic markers associated with cancer cells can assist in the development of diagnostic tools and monitoring techniques.

Conclusion:

Cancer cells are at the core of cancer development and progression. Understanding their characteristics, behavior, and origins is crucial for developing effective prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. Ongoing research continues to unravel the complexities of cancer cells, bringing hope for improved outcomes and ultimately a world without cancer.

[denovotech]

What are the 4 stages of cell culture?

Denovo Technologies, a leading provider of life science products and services in India, offers a wide range of solutions for cell culture. Cell culture plays a crucial role in various research and biotechnological applications, allowing scientists to study and manipulate cells in a controlled laboratory environment. Denovo Technologies follows a comprehensive four-stage process in cell culture, ensuring optimal growth and viability of cells for experimental purposes.

[mleprae]

Finished this guy's lil redesign!

My ocs aren't quite spec bio, I don't consider myself smart enough to write the same level everyone in the spec bio community does but alot of people tag my ocs as such, so I decided to entertain a bit and write abit about Q'wilqilth's biology :3

They are basically an overgrown giant bacteria, often referred as "plague angels", the angel part comes from the fact these critters live in a colossal interplanetary organism that many human cultures refer it as the one and true God.

read-

Q'wilqilth-óó is a Neobacteria, often referred generally as 'angels' (though angels include many other non-Neobacteria), Neobacteria are a domain of organisms whose bodies are made up of bacterial colonies acting in tandem as organs, like organs and cells - each colony houses a bacteria with different physiologies to fit a certain role.

And for the same reason, Neobacteria may be composed of species that are pathogenic to humans (hence the 'plague' angel name), they also take on similar mechanisms and ecological roles to their single celled/simple counterparts.

Q'wilqilth in this case (often just shortened to Q'wi) is a Neomyco leprae, derived from the bacteria that causes leprosy in humans, this species is sophont and is often wearing clothing but I decided to add it in there just to see their markings better, they don't have common names and are mostly just referred to as leprosy plague angels, but some species of Neobacteria refer to them as 'Jade emperors' or simply 'Leviathans'

Like many plague angels, this species is a parasitoid/facultative parasite and relies on deploying their genetic material on a host to reproduce, N. leprae prefers doing this to Neural coils, a species derived from Schawnn cells who produce a mucus that stimulates the production of electricity from Neuron trees.

When bursting out of a Neural coil, most will spend years attached to the Neuron trees their former host was attached to, this phase is important to the development of the 'Ouabain whip', a small organ in their tail that helps them regulate their electronegativity and is later used as a weapon, disrupting Na+/K+ ATP-ase in any predators towards them.

They are mostly nomadic, save for a few small tribes/clans, they can travel long distances thanks to their lipid-rich diet, this species has taken lipid/fat as their primary energy source and carbohydrate last, it may not look like but they have extremely mobile/flexible lips and strong toungues/jaws to suck vegetable oil and starch off Neuron trees, unlike their pulmonary counterparts (Tuberculosis), they are facultative aerobics and can use electricity/eletrons provided by the Neuron trees as a substitute for oxygen in ATP production. When migrating out of the Neural forest, they are equipped with mostly molars, strong jaws, and specific digestory enzymes in their mouths to digest tough animal (?) fat. This gives them a much slower metabolism, allowing them to travel without eating for large amounts of time.

Last but not least, though they are gliders, they have evolved their mycolic acid to be hydrophobic in nature, keeping their skin from getting wet/humid, they are great swimmers and their facultative aerobic nature allows them to survive underwater without oxygen, they can live in a variety of biomes within the Super-organism; squashed between arteries close to the red rivers, in the high lands, golden hills or even the filter. They will however, avoid warmer temperatures and prefer sticking to the poles.

lil sketch of their clothing, representing a epitheloid cell, the body is usually covered in bone sculptures of phagossomes and liver-otters

[0ctogus]

🚨💥🦠 NEW PRIMARY ENDOSYMBIOSIS DROPPED🦠💥🚨

A new haptophyte alga, Braarudosphaera bigelowii has managed to be cultured which contains what was thought to be an endosymbiotic nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium. Upon further study which was possible once B. bigelowii was cultured, it was shown that this purported endosymbiont imports proteins with a specific peptide tag from its host cell. This could indicate that the endosymbiont has lost part of its genome and transferred it to the host cell, which is the one who makes the proteins in those parts now. Along with the fact that it grows and divides synchronized with the host cell, this could indicate that the endosymbiont has become an organelle, which has been dubbed the nitroplast!

This would only be the 4th ever known case of primary endosymbiosis, after the original mitochondrion, the original chloroplast, and the cyanelles of Paulinella. This nitroplast, however, is remarkable for being the first ever known example of a nitrogen-fixing organelle in eukaryotes. This is of particular interest because it shows that potentially we could also engineer other eukaryotes (plants) to have a nitrogen-fixing organelle, which would remove the massive dependence on fertilizers as a nitrogen source in many plants, as they could fix it directly from the air!

B. bigelowii is also delightfully dodecahedral:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-scientists-nitrogen-organelle-1.amp

[cbk1000]

So what exactly is it about Merlin and Arthur that make them so ship-worthy, sparking million-word fanfics? Why does it remain one of the most popular fandoms? Why do you never seem to tire of them as a writer? (Not that I am complaining or anything. I just find the loyalty fascinating considering how much new stuff is coming out every day).

Bradley and Colin and their chemistry together as performers certainly is an important aspect of the popularity of that specific ship, but I think the endurance of the Merlin fandom as a whole is due primarily to two main things, which are: that tragic ending, and the unrealised potential of the show.

The primary consensus amongst Merlin fans if you ask them about a piece of media they're still obsessing over, twelve years after it ended, is, "BBC Merlin is terrible; it's so good." The premise and characters are interesting. There are some absolute banger lines. There are bits and pieces of it that are good. But as a whole, it's a muddled piece of trash (I still love you, BBC Merlin, don't worry). Uther is a tyrant who has committed literal genocide, and they make the main villain a woman who is a part of the oppressed class of people that he's indiscriminately murdering. Women in general get to be one of two things: love interest, or moustache-twirling villain. Arthur grows as a person only for the writing to immediately walk back that growth, usually for a cheap joke. The major narrative arcs, the most familiar, identifiable aspects of Arthurian legend in the cultural consciousness (Lancelot, the love triangle, the fall of Morgana, Mordred's betrayal, etc.) are either barely present (see: Lancelot's two seconds of screentime) or completely devoid of believable character motivation (see: Mordred suddenly turning on Arthur because he executes a woman who committed terrorism who it turns out was someone Mordred knew as a kid and completely forgot about till the moment he saw her in her jail cell).

When something is, in some ways, quite good, and in a lot of other ways, hot garbage, it leaves a wide-open sandbox for fans to play in. I think if the show were much more well-written, and consistently so, the fandom would have died out years ago. But instead, we never saw the Golden Age of Camelot. We never saw Albion united. We never saw Merlin and Arthur reunited. We were left, at the end, with one main character dead, and the other centuries later still waiting for a person the show literally describes as his other half to come back to him. People haven't moved on because they spent five seasons watching a silly, stupid family show to see its main character fail at what he was literally prophesied to achieve and hold his best friend while he died. We don't even know for sure in the end that Arthur came back to him. We see Merlin alone, in modern day, at the lake, still waiting for him, with no indication that Arthur is rising again. And for people watching the show as it aired, the BBC delivered this nut punch on Christmas Eve.

I think it's about what the show didn't do, and the space that creates for fans to come in and do it themselves, over and over again.

Also, personally, I'm trying to self-soothe.

[transmechanicus]

Mankind is incapable of sorcery. This is not a value judgement or an act of prideful gatekeeping, but a statement of fact. On levels genetic, morphologic, and cognitive mankind is constrained in ways that prevent their inherent biological application of magic. They lack crucial genes shielding them from the potent radiation of extradimensional forces. Their joints are too restrictive, their number of limbs too few. The spectrum of their senses is far too narrow, and rare is the human mind that can comprehend the complex underlying theorems required to do more than poorly imitate the might of sorcerers of other species. Many a human fool has sought to grasp at magic and has been twisted by bone breaking, gut wrenching gravitic forces as their flesh burns and bleeds from within.

The motions of witches and spellcasters are not entirely an act of control, but also rather the expression of self distorting and intractable forces being exerted in exchange for miracles manifested by complexity of one’s mind. This lesson was slow in taking for humans, but it was one they overcame with typical determination.

First was the creation of the psycho-frame, a device that could divert the locus of magical catalysis to an artificial point, allowing humans to cast magic through more resilient and adaptable proxy constructs. Following several centuries later was mankind’s first artificial witch, an AI synthesis of machine learning and simulated replicas of human brains.

This latter creation revolutionized human control of magic, allowing its use on a significantly expanded and coordinated scale, as well as its study and analysis by their symbiotic machine organisms for the first time. It was not long after that humans began utilizing magic as their primary means of FTL, being less resource intensive than the temporally compressed accelerators they used prior. Now every interstellar ship had a meadow of proxy sorcerers on its bow, exerting the will of a God Machine at the vessels heart, tearing open reality to carry mankind to vistas far and grand.

There upon those distant horizons they found such beauty, but in far greater frequency horrors beyond count. Beings evolved from their first fusing of cells in parts of the galaxy saturated by dimensional bleed and convinced of their cultural and biological supremacy as masters of witch physics. Cities arranged upon worlds for the conduction of sacrificial spells by entire planetary populations. Planetary bodies were torn asunder from systems away, and the flow of time upon stars and their orbits was twisted to send human populated worlds towards disaster at the will of alien cult magi. Moon sized inter-system super predators blasted lightning and neuron burning insanity at any human ship that dared enter their conception of territory, hunting mankind’s vessels like fish in a vast black sea.

There was no counter to such things, not that could be mustered quickly or reliably. Ship designs were altered from the colossal Void Arks carrying entire cities of military, governmental, and civilian crew, to stripped down Witness Frigates run only by a Demigod class AI and a brave few humans to accompany them in mankind’s efforts to chart the stars. Only when a system was thoroughly explored and catalogued directly would any further Arks be sent. So into the black were sent thousands of unblinking mechanical eyes and beating hearts.

What do you think they found?

[mamawasatesttube]

Top five headcanons for either A) Kryptonian Biology, or B) Kryptonian Culture

THEY CAN PURR!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am going to cat-code kryptonians so hard (well, catdog. dog software running on cat hardware?). they have to purr and sleep in little piles in patches of sunlight and also have tapeta lucida and weirdly mobile joints.

kryptonians have significantly less notable sexual dimorphism than humans. instead they've got a bidirectional hermaphroditism thing going on - they have both ovaries and testes etc, and hormonal cycles that dictate their oogenic and spermatogenic phases. (they're not ever oogenic and spermatogenic at the same time; it cycles.)

their cells, all of them but skin cells in particular, have aggressive genetic repair systems somewhat like a crispr-cas9 complex, to combat thymine dimerization and other potential dna damage from all the various forms of radiation they regularly expose themselves to via their [bonkers insane] photosynthesis. this is also why it's so hard to clone them from an adult; if the dna already has shortened telomeres that aren't "supposed to be" that short, the embryonic cells will simply apoptose en masse and the tissue will not develop.

tied to their bonkers insane photosynthesis: like humans, they have hemoglobin as the primary oxygen-carrier in their blood, but via whatever the fuck is going on that makes shorter wavelengths of light make their photosynthesis more efficient by many orders of magnitude, their oxygen efficiency also increases manyfold. this is why they still need to breathe under a red sun, but not under yellow ones - they do still need to breathe under yellow light, but not for several hours, as compared to minutes under red light. in this way, they are kind of like whales. in space.

when they've gotten a lot of sunlight to the point that their bodies' mechanisms of internal energy storage are saturated, they glow very slightly. it's particularly noticeable in the eyes, since the heat vision is a very easy way to expel energy. this is part of why they tend to wear glasses in civilian guises; blue light filters make it harder to notice any glow around their eyes after a long day out in the sun. also, glowing eyes are just sexy.

[reasonsforhope]

"Scientists have created mice with two biological fathers by generating eggs from male cells, a development that opens up radical new possibilities for reproduction.

The advance could ultimately pave the way for treatments for severe forms of infertility, as well as raising the tantalising prospect of same-sex couples being able to have a biological child together in the future.

“This is the first case of making robust mammal oocytes [a.k.a. egg cells] from male cells,” said Katsuhiko Hayashi, who led the work at Kyushu University in Japan and is internationally renowned as a pioneer in the field of lab-grown eggs and sperm.

Hayashi, who presented the development at the Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing at the Francis Crick Institute in London on Wednesday, predicts that it will be technically possible to create a viable human egg from a male skin cell within a decade. Others suggested this timeline was optimistic given that scientists are yet to create viable lab-grown human eggs from female cells.

Previously scientists have created mice that technically had two biological fathers through a chain of elaborate steps, including genetic engineering. However, this is the first time viable eggs have been cultivated from male cells and marks a significant advance. Hayashi’s team is now attempting to replicate this achievement with human cells, although there would be significant hurdles for the use of lab-grown eggs for clinical purposes, including establishing their safety.

“Purely in terms of technology, it will be possible [in humans] even in 10 years,” he said, adding that he personally would be in favour of the technology being used clinically to allow two men to have a baby if it were shown to be safe.

“I don’t know whether they’ll be available for reproduction,” he said. “That is not a question just for the scientific programme, but also for [society].”

The technique could also be applied to treat severe forms of infertility, including women with Turner’s syndrome, in whom one copy of the X chromosome is missing or partly missing, and Hayashi said this application was the primary motivation for the research.

Others suggested that it could prove challenging to translate the technique to human cells. Human cells require much longer periods of cultivation to produce a mature egg, which can increase the risk of cells acquiring unwanted genetic changes.

Prof George Daley, the dean of Harvard Medical School, described the work as “fascinating”, but added that other research had indicated that creating lab-grown gametes from human cells was more challenging than for mouse cells. “We still don’t understand enough of the unique biology of human gametogenesis to reproduce Hayashi’s provocative work in mice,” he said.

Study Methods

The study, which has been submitted for publication in a leading journal, relied on a sequence of intricate steps to transform a skin cell, carrying the male XY chromosome combination, into an egg, with the female XX version.

Male skin cells were reprogrammed into a stem cell-like state to create so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. The Y-chromosome of these cells was then deleted and replaced by an X chromosome “borrowed” from another cell to produce iPS cells with two identical X chromosomes.

“The trick of this, the biggest trick, is the duplication of the X chromosome,” said Hayashi. “We really tried to establish a system to duplicate the X chromosome.”

Finally, the cells were cultivated in an ovary organoid, a culture system designed to replicate the conditions inside a mouse ovary. When the eggs were fertilised with normal sperm, the scientists obtained about 600 embryos, which were implanted into surrogate mice, resulting in the birth of seven mouse pups. The efficiency of about 1% was lower [although not THAT much lower] than the efficiency achieved with normal female-derived eggs, where about 5% of embryos went on to produce a live birth.

The baby mice appeared healthy, had a normal lifespan, and went on to have offspring as adults. “They look OK, they look to be growing normally, they become fathers,” said Hayashi.

Going Further

He and colleagues are now attempting to replicate the creation of lab-grown eggs using human cells.

Prof Amander Clark, who works on lab-grown gametes at the University of California Los Angeles, said that translating the work into human cells would be a “huge leap”, because scientists are yet to create lab-grown human eggs from female cells.

Scientists have created the precursors of human eggs, but until now the cells have stopped developing before the point of meiosis, a critical step of cell division that is required in the development of mature eggs and sperm. “We’re poised at this bottleneck at the moment,” she said. “The next steps are an engineering challenge. But getting through that could be 10 years or 20 years.”

-via The Guardian (US), 3/8/23

[kosheeka]

CD34 cells

The presence of CD 34 also serves as an identification of hematopoietic stem cells /progenitors. Such CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cells show the high capacity of cell division. They can differentiate into cells of the hematopoietic lineage as well as other lineages such as cardiomyocytes, hepatocytes and epithelial cells of the respiratory system

[scotianostra]

On September 5th 1750, the poet Robert Fergusson was born in the Canongate in Edinburgh.

Most of you will not have heard of Robert Fergusson, he suffered from ill health, physical and mental, during his short life, he passed away in barbarous conditions in Edinburgh's notorious Bedlam.

Doctor Andrew Duncan, the name might be familiar to those from Edinburgh, on finding Fergusson before being admitted to the "hospital" described him as being in a "state of furious insanity" he saw no choice but to have Fergusson taken to the city's Bedlam madhouse.Conditions at the Bedlam, which was attached to the Edinburgh Charity Workhouse behind modern-day Teviot Place, were notoriously awful. Patients were treated as inmates, locked in cold stone-flagged cells, with only straw for bedding.

Fergusson may have only lived for 24 years, the last of which was traumatic, but those short years not only inspired Scotland’s best-known bard Robert Burns and the writer Robert Louis Stevenson, it also paved the way for better treatment of people with mental health conditions thanks to the aforementioned Dr Duncan.

Robert Fergusson was born of Aberdeenshire parents in Cap-and-Feather Close, in Edinburgh’s Old Town, on 5 September, 1750. The street has since disappeared, having been demolished during Fergusson’s lifetime to make way for the North Bridge, many of you will have walked over where Cap-and-Feather Close, it is said to have been where the junction at the Tron Church is, the road that now takes you over North Bridge towards Princes Street.

After primary education in Edinburgh, Fergusson entered the city’s High School in 1758, attaining a bursary to attend the Grammar School in Dundee in 1762. Two years later, he enrolled in St. Andrews University. As a student, Fergusson became infamous for his pranks, having once come close to expulsion. Despite this riotous reputation, the poet’s education stayed with him, he moved back to Edinburgh to support his mother, after the death of his father.

He got a job as a copyist for the Commissary Office main concern was, of course, poetry, and on 7 February, 1771 he anonymously published the first of a trio of pastorals in Ruddiman’s Weekly Magazine. Originally he wrote in English but by 1772 he had started to use the Scottish dialect in the standard Habbie verse form - a form which would later be copied and made famous by Robert Burns, indeed this style is now called the Burns stanza, perhaps it should be The Fergusson Stanza?

Fergusson’s own muse was Allan Ramsay and, like the be-turbaned Ramsey, followed a bit of a bohemian lifestyle in Edinburgh, which was then at the height of an intellectual and cultural tumult as the nerve centre of the Scottish Enlightenment. He wrote a total of fifty poems in Scottish English and thirty-three in the Scots language, but it is for his remarkable exploits in the latter genre that he should be acknowledged and acclaimed. His poetic subject matter paints vivid accounts of the life and characters of ‘Auld Reekie’ and drunken encounters with the notorious Edinburgh City Guard of Captain Porteous, the ‘Black Banditti’ of ‘The Daft Days’.

Fergusson began to suffer from depression in 1773, biographers have described his condition as ‘religious melancholia’, but regardless of whether or not that was the case, he gave up his job, stopped writing, withdrew completely from his riotous social life, and spent his time reading the Bible. He had heard about an Irish poet, John Cunningham, who had died in an asylum in Newcastle. That inspired 'Poem to the Memory of John Cunningham', and Fergusson became terribly afraid that the same thing was going to happen to him. Tragically, his dark prediction came true. In August, 1774, Fergusson fell down a flight of stairs and received a bad head injury, after which he was deemed ‘insensible’. His friend, the good doctor Andrew Duncan, had no choice but to admit him to Darien House "hospital", Bedlam, where after a matter of weeks, he suddenly died. He had only just turned 24.

I return to the fact that Burns was a fan and after Fergusson’s death Burns wrote of him, “my elder brother in misfortune, by far my elder brother in the muse.”

Fergusson was buried in an unmarked plot in The Canongate Kirkyard. On visiting Edinburgh in 1787, Burns paid for a headstone over his long-neglected grave, commemorating Fergusson as ‘Scotia’s Poet. I have taken many friends to visit Fergusson's last resting place over the years, mainly down to my late mother's love of Burns, but also because I love showing people around my home town.

The picture shows the statue of Robert Fergusson outside the Canongate Church, if passing go pay your respects to the man, who inspired Rabbie Burns, who, under different circumstances might have been lauded as our National Bard, if you like a wee whisky perhaps raise a glass tonight on what might have been "Fergusson's Night"

This few lines are from The Daft Days, by Fergusson, you will get the drift of Edinburgh being a comforting, hospitable place where they aren't afraid of a drink, which is a s true today as it was in 1772 when they were written.

Auld Reikie! thou’rt the canty hole,

A bield for many caldrife soul,

Wha snugly at thine ingle loll,

Baith warm and couth,

While round they gar the bicker roll

To weet their mouth.

[denovotech]

Unraveling the Distinction: Primary Antibodies vs. Secondary Antibodies by DenovoTechnologies

Introduction:

In the realm of life sciences and research, antibodies play a pivotal role in understanding cellular processes and uncovering the mysteries of biology. DenovoTechnologies, a renowned name in the scientific community, stands at the forefront, offering premium services in the field of primary antibodies. This article aims to delve into the nuances of primary antibodies, differentiating them from their secondary counterparts while emphasizing DenovoTechnologies' commitment to excellence.

Understanding Primary Antibodies:

Primary antibodies are key tools in the researcher's arsenal, specifically designed to target and bind to a particular antigen or protein of interest. These antibodies are typically derived from host organisms, such as rabbits, mice, or goats, and are raised against a specific target. DenovoTechnologies excels in providing a diverse array of primary antibodies, meticulously developed to ensure high specificity and sensitivity in various research applications.

Specificity in Target Binding:

Primary antibodies from DenovoTechnologies are carefully crafted to recognize a unique epitope on the target protein, ensuring accuracy and reliability in experimental results. The specificity of primary antibodies aids researchers in precisely detecting and analyzing the protein of interest, contributing to the credibility of scientific findings.

Applications in Various Techniques:

DenovoTechnologies' primary antibodies cater to a broad spectrum of experimental techniques, including Western blotting, immunohistochemistry (IHC), immunofluorescence (IF), and enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay (ELISA).Researchers benefit from the versatility of these primary antibodies, allowing seamless integration into different assays for a comprehensive understanding of protein expression and localization.

Distinguishing Primary Antibodies from Secondary Antibodies:

While primary antibodies directly bind to target antigens, secondary antibodies serve as support players, binding to primary antibodies and amplifying the signal. Understanding the differences between these two types of antibodies is crucial for designing effective experiments.

Target Binding:

Primary antibodies bind directly to the target antigen, while secondary antibodies bind to primary antibodies. DenovoTechnologies ensures that their primary antibodies exhibit exceptional affinity for specific targets, minimizing non-specific interactions.

Signal Amplification:

Secondary antibodies play a pivotal role in signal amplification. They often carry reporter molecules, such as enzymes or fluorophores, which enhance the detectability of the primary antibody-antigen complex. DenovoTechnologies' primary antibodies, when paired with high-quality secondary antibodies, ensure robust and amplified signals.

DenovoTechnologies: Elevating Research Standards

DenovoTechnologies emerges as a beacon of innovation and reliability in the realm of antibody development. Their commitment to delivering premium services is underscored by the following key aspects:

Stringent Quality Control:

Each primary antibody undergoes rigorous quality control measures to guarantee specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility. DenovoTechnologies maintains strict standards to ensure that researchers receive antibodies of the highest caliber.

Diverse Portfolio:

DenovoTechnologies boasts a diverse portfolio of primary antibodies, covering an extensive range of research areas. Whether investigating cellular pathways, signaling molecules, or structural proteins, researchers can find tailored solutions to meet their experimental needs.

Innovation in Antibody Technology:

DenovoTechnologies consistently invests in cutting-edge antibody technologies, staying ahead of the curve in an ever-evolving scientific landscape. Their commitment to innovation positions them as leaders in the field of life sciences.

Conclusion:

In the intricate world of molecular research, primary antibodies stand as indispensable tools, unraveling the complexities of cellular processes. DenovoTechnologies, with its unwavering commitment to excellence, offers researchers a gateway to premium primary antibodies, empowering them to push the boundaries of scientific discovery. As the scientific community continues to explore new frontiers, DenovoTechnologies remains a trusted partner, elevating research standards and fostering breakthroughs in the quest for knowledge.For an extensive selection of primary antibodies and innovative solutions, visit https://denovotec.com.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Robert Lynch

Published: April 7, 2023

In my first year of graduate school at Rutgers, I attended a colloquium designed to forge connections between the cultural and biological wings of the anthropology department. It was the early 2000s, and anthropology departments across the country were splitting across disciplinary lines. These lectures would be a last, and ultimately futile, attempt to build interdisciplinary links between these increasingly hostile factions at Rutgers; it was like trying to establish common research goals for the math and art departments.

This time, it was the turn of the biological anthropologists, and the primatologist Ryne Palombit was giving a lecture for which he was uniquely qualified — infanticide in Chacma baboons. Much of the talk was devoted to sex differences in baboon behavior and when it was time for questions the hand of the chair of the department, a cultural anthropologist, shot up and demanded to know “What exactly do you mean by these so-called males and females?” I didn’t know it at the time but looking back I see that this was the beginning of a broad anti-science movement that has enveloped nearly all the social sciences and distorted public understanding of basic biology. The assumption that sex is an arbitrary category is no longer confined to the backwaters of cultural anthropology departments, and the willful ignorance of what sex is has permeated both academia and public discussion of the topic.

Male and female are not capricious categories imposed by scientists on the natural world, but rather refer to fundamental distinctions deeply rooted in evolution. The biological definition of males and females rests on the size of the sex cells, termed gametes, that they produce. Males produce large numbers of small gametes, while females produce fewer, larger ones. In animals, this means that males produce lots of tiny sperm (between 200 and 500 million sperm in humans) while females produce far fewer, but much larger, eggs called ova (women have a lifetime supply of around 400). Whenever scientists discover a new sexually reproducing species, gamete size is what they use to distinguish between the males and the females.

Although this asymmetry in gamete size may not seem that significant, it is. And it leads to a cascade of evolutionary effects that often results in fundamentally different developmental (and even behavioral) trajectories for the two respective sexes. Whether you call the two groups A and B, Big and Little, or Male and Female, this foundational cell-sized difference in gamete size has profound effects on evolution, morphology, and behavior. Sexual reproduction that involves the union of gametes of different sizes is termed anisogamy, and it sets the stage for characteristic, and frequently stereotypical, differences between males and females.

My PhD advisor, the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, was at that doomed colloquium at Rutgers. It was Trivers, who four decades earlier as a graduate student at Harvard, laid down the basic evolutionary argument in one of the most cited papers in biology. Throwing down the gauntlet and explaining something that had puzzled biologists since Darwin, he wrote, “What governs the operation of sexual selection is the relative parental investment of the sexes in their offspring.” In a single legendary stroke of insight, which he later described in biblical terms (“the scales fell from my eyes”), he revolutionized the field and provided a broad framework for understanding the emergence of sex differences across all sexually reproducing species.

Because males produce millions of sperm cells quickly and cheaply, the main factor limiting their evolutionary success lies in their ability to attract females. Meanwhile, the primary bottleneck for females, who, in humans, spend an additional nine months carrying the baby, is access to resources. The most successful males, such as Genghis Khan who is likely to have had more than 16 million direct male descendants, can invest relatively little and let the chips fall where they may, while the most successful women are restricted by the length of their pregnancy. Trivers’ genius, however, was in extracting the more general argument from these observations.

By replacing “female” with “the sex that invests more in its offspring,” he made one of the most falsifiable predictions in evolution — the sex that invests more in its offspring will be more selective when choosing a mate while the sex that invests less will compete over access to mates. That insight not only explains the rule, but it also explains the exceptions to it. Because of the initial disparity in investment (i.e., gamete size) females will usually be more selective in choosing mates. However, that trajectory can be reversed under certain conditions, and sometimes the male of a species will invest more in offspring and so be choosier.

When these so-called sex role reversals occur, such as in seahorses where the males “get pregnant” by having the female transfer her fertilized eggs into a structure termed the male’s brood pouch and hence becoming more invested in their offspring, it is the females who are larger and compete over mates, while the males are more selective. Find a species where the sex that invests less in offspring is choosier, and the theory will be disproven.

The assertion that male and female are arbitrary classifications is false on every level. Not only does it confuse primary sexual characteristics (i.e., the reproductive organs) which are unambiguously male or female at birth 99.8 percent of the time with secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., more hair on the faces of men or larger breasts in women), it ignores the very definition of biological sex — men produce many small sex cells termed sperm while women produce fewer large sex cells termed eggs. Although much is sometimes made of the fact that sex differences in body size, hormonal profiles, behavior, and lots of other traits vary across species, that these differences are minimal or non-existent in some species, or that a small percentage of individuals, due to disorders of development, possess an anomalous mix of female and male traits, that does not undermine this basic distinction. There is no third sex. Sex is, by definition, binary.

In the 50 years since Trivers’ epiphany, much has tried to obscure his crucial insight. As biology enters a golden age, with daily advances in genotyping transforming our understanding of evolution and medicine, the social sciences have taken a vastly different direction. Many are now openly hostile to findings outside their narrow field, walling off their respective disciplines from biological knowledge. Why bother learning about new findings in genetics or incorporating discoveries from other fields, if you can assert that all such findings are, by definition, sexist?

Prior to 1955, gender was almost exclusively used to refer to grammatical categories (e.g., masculine and feminine nouns in French). A major shift occurred in the 1960s when the word gender has been applied to distinguish social/cultural differences from biological differences (sex). Harvard Biologist, David Haig documented that from 1988 to 1999 the ratio of the use of “sex” versus “gender” in scientific journals shrank from 10 to 1 to less than 2 to 1, and that after 1988 gender outnumbered sex in all social science journals. The last twenty years have seen a rapid acceleration in this trend, and today this distinction is rarely observed. Indeed, the biological concept of sex in reference to humans has become largely taboo outside of journals that focus on evolution. Many, however, are not content with limiting the gender concept to humans and a new policy instituted by all Nature journals requires that manuscripts include a discussion of how gender was considered in all studies with human participants, on other vertebrates, or on cell lines. When would including gender be appropriate in a genetic study of fruit flies?

This change is not merely stylistic. Rather, it is part of a much larger cultural and political movement that denies or attempts to explain away the effects of biology and evolution in humans altogether. The prevailing dominant view in the social sciences is that human sex differences are entirely socially constructed. In that interpretation, all differential outcomes between men and women are the result of unequal social, economic, and political conditions, and so we do all we can to eliminate them, particularly by changing our expectations and encouraging gender-neutral play in children. This received wisdom and policies based upon it, however, are unlikely to produce the results proponents long for. Why is that?

Because sex differences in behavior are among the strongest effect sizes in social, and what might be better termed, behavioral sciences. Humans are notoriously inept at understanding differences between continuous variables, so it is first useful to define precisely what “statistical differences between men and women” does and does not mean. Although gamete size and the reproductive organs in humans are either male or female at birth in over 99 percent of cases, many secondary sexual characteristics such as differences in upper body strength and differences in behavior are not so differentially distributed. Rather, there is considerable overlap between men and women. Life scientists often use something called the effect size as a way to determine if any observed differences are large (and therefore consequential) or so small as to be ignored for almost all practical purposes.

Conceptually, the effect size is a statistical method for comparing any two groups to see how substantially different they are. Graphically, it can be thought of as the distance between the peaks of the two distributions divided by the width of those distributions. For example, men are on average about 6 inches taller than women in the United States (mean height for American women is 5 feet 3 inches and the mean height for American men is approximately 5 feet 9 inches). The spread of the height distributions for men and women, also known as the standard deviations, are also somewhat different, and this is slightly higher for men at 2.9 inches vs 2.8 inches for women. For traits such as height that are normally distributed (that is, they fit the familiar bell curve shape), one standard deviation on either side of the mean encompasses about 68 percent of the distribution, while two standard deviations on either side of the mean encompass 95 percent of the total distribution. In other words, 68 percent of women will be between 60.2 inches and 65.8 inches tall, and 95 percent will be between 57.5 to 68.6 inches. So, in a random sample of 1000 adult women in the U.S., approximately 50 of them will be taller than the average man (see figure above).

A large effect size, or the standardized mean difference, is anything over 0.8 and is usually seen as an effect that most people would notice without using a calculator. The effect size for sex differences in height is approximately 1.9. This is considered to be a pretty big effect size. But it is certainly not binary, and there are lots of taller-than-average women who are taller than lots of shorter-than-average men (see overlap area in figure). Therefore, when determining whether an effect is small or large, it is important to remember that the cutoffs are always to some degree arbitrary and that what might seem like small differences between the means can become magnified when comparing the number of cases that fall in the extremes of (the tails of their respective distributions) of each group.

In other words, men and women may, on average, be quite similar on a given trait but will be quite different in the number who fall at the extreme (low and high) ends of their respective distributions. This is particularly true of sex differences because natural selection acts more strongly on men, and males have had higher reproductive variance than females over our evolutionary history. That is to say that a greater number of men than women have left no descendants, while a very few men have left far more. Both the maximum number of eggs that a woman produces over the course of her reproductive life versus the number of sperm a man produces and the length of pregnancy, during which another reproduction cannot occur, place an upper limit on the number of offspring women can have. What this means is that males often have wider distributions for a trait (i.e., more at the low end and more at the high end) so that sex differences can be magnified at the tail ends of the distribution. In practical terms, this means that when comparing men and women, it is also important to look at the tails of their respective distributions (e.g., the extremes in mental ability).

The strongest effect sizes where men tend to have the advantage are in physical abilities such as throwing distance or speed, spatial relations tasks, and some social behaviors such as assertiveness. Women, meanwhile, tend to have an edge in verbal ability, social cognition, and in being more extroverted, trusting, and nurturing. Some of the largest sex differences, however, are in human mate choice and behaviors that emerge out of the evolutionary logic of Trivers’ parental investment theory. In study after study, women are found to give more weight to traits in partners that signal an ability to acquire resources, such as socioeconomic status and ambition, while men tend to give more weight to traits that signal fertility, such as youth and attractiveness.

Indeed these attitudes are also revealed in behavior such as age at marriage (men are on average older than women in every country on earth), frequency of masturbation, indulging in pornography, and paying for sex. Although these results are often dismissed, largely on ideological grounds, the science is rarely challenged, and the data suggest some biological difference (which may be amplified, indeed enshrined, by social practices).

The evidence that many sex differences in behavior have a biological origin is powerful. There are three primary ways that scientists use to determine whether a trait is rooted in biology or not. The first is if the same pattern is seen across cultures. This is because the likelihood that a particular characteristic, such as husbands being older than their wives, is culturally determined declines every time the same pattern is seen in another society — somewhat like the odds of getting heads 200 times in a row. The second indication that a trait has a biological origin is if it is seen in young children who have not yet been fully exposed to a given culture. For example, if boy babies are more aggressive than girl babies, which they generally are, it suggests that the behavior may have a biological basis. Finally, if the same pattern, such as males being more aggressive than females, is observed in closely related species, it also suggests an evolutionary basis. While some gender role “theories” can attempt to account for culturally universal sex differences, they cannot explain sex differences that are found in infants who haven’t yet learned to speak, as well as in the young of other related species.

Many human sex differences satisfy all three conditions — they are culturally universal, are observable in newborns, and a similar pattern is seen in apes and other mammals. The largest sex differences found with striking cross-cultural similarity are in mate preferences, but other differences arise across societies and among young children before the age of three as boys and girls tend to self-segregate into different groups with distinct and stereotypical styles. These patterns, which include more play fighting in males, are observable in other apes and mammal species, which, like humans, follow the logic of Trivers’ theory of parental investment and have higher variance in male reproduction, and therefore more intense competition among males as compared to females.

If so, why then has the opposite message — that these differences are either non-existent or solely the result of social construction — been so vehemently argued? The reason, I submit, is essentially political. The idea that any consequential differences between men and women have no foundation in biology has wide appeal because it fosters the illusion of control. If gender role “theories” are correct, then all we need to do to eliminate them is to modify the social environment (e.g., give kids gender-neutral toys, and the problem is solved). If, however, sex differences are hardwired into human nature, they will be more difficult to change.

Acknowledging the role of biology also opens the door to conceding the possibility that the existence of statistically unequal outcomes for men and women are not just something to be expected but may even be…desirable. Consider the so-called gender equality paradox whereby sex differences in personality and occupation are higher in countries with greater opportunities for women. Countries with the highest gender equality,24 such as Finland, have the lowest proportion of women who graduate college with degrees in stereotypically masculine STEM fields, while the least gender equal countries such as Saudi Arabia, have the highest. Similarly, the female-to-male sex ratio in stereotypically female occupations such nursing is 40 to 1 in Scandinavia, but only 2 to 1 in countries like Morocco.

The above numbers are consistent with cross-cultural research that indicates that women are, on average, more attracted to professions focused on people such as medicine and biology, while men are, again, on average, more attracted to professions focused on things such as mathematics and engineering. These findings are not a matter of dispute, but they are inconvenient for gender role theorists because they suggest that women and men have different preferences upon which they act when given the choice. Indeed, it is only a “paradox” if one assumes that sex is entirely socially constructed. As opportunities for women opened up in Europe and the United States in the sixties and seventies, employment outcomes changed rapidly. However, the proportions of men and women in various fields stabilized sometime around the early 1990s and have barely moved in the last thirty years. These findings imply that there is a limited capacity for outside interventions imposed from the top down to alter these behaviors.

In the cold logic of evolution, neither sex is, or can be, better or worse. Although this may not be the kind of equality some might want, we need to move beyond simplistic ideas of hierarchy.

It is understandable, however, for some to fear that any concession to nature will be used to justify and perpetuate bias and discrimination. Although arguments for why women should be prohibited from certain types of employment or why they should not be allowed to vote were ideological, sex differences have been used to justify a number of historical injustices. Still, is the fear of abuse so great that denying any biological sex differences is the only alternative?

The rhetorical contortions and inscrutable jargon required to assert that gender and sex are nothing more than chosen identities and deny what every parent knows require increasingly complex and incoherent arguments. This not only subverts the public’s rapidly waning confidence in science, but it also leads to extreme exaggerations designed to silence those who don’t agree, such as the claim that discussing biological differences is violence. The lengths to which many previously trusted institutions, such as the American Medical Association, go to deny the impact that hormones have on development are extraordinary. These efforts are also likely to backfire politically when gender-neutral terms are mandated by elites, such as the term “Latinx,” which is opposed by 98 percent of Hispanic Americans.

Acknowledging the existence of a biological basis for sex differences does not mean that we should accept unequal opportunities for men and women. Indeed, the crux of the problem lies in conflating equality with statistical identity and in our failure to respect and value difference. These differences should not be ranked in terms of inferior or superior, nor do they have any bearing on the worth or dignity of men and women as a group. They cannot be categorized as being either good or bad because it depends on which traits you want to optimize. This is real diversity that we should acknowledge and even celebrate.

Ever since the origin of sexual reproduction approximately two billion years ago, sexual selection, governed by an initial disparity in the size of the sex cells, has driven a cascade of differences, a few absolute, many more statistical, between males and females. As a result, men and women have been experiencing distinct evolutionary pressures. At the same time, however, this process has ruthlessly enforced an equality between the sexes, ensured by the fact that it takes one male and one female to reproduce, which guarantees the equal average reproduction of men and women. The production of sons and daughters, who inherit a near equal split of their parents’ genetic material, also demands that mothers and fathers contribute equally to their same- and their opposite-sex children. In the cold logic of evolution, neither sex is, or can be, better or worse. Although this may not be the kind of equality some might want, we need to move beyond simplistic ideas of hierarchy, naively confusing difference with claims of inferiority/superiority, or confusing dominance with power. In the currency of evolution, better just means more copies, dominance only matters if it leads to more offspring, and there are many paths to power.

The assertion that children are born without sex and are molded into gender roles by their parents is wildly implausible. It undermines what little public trust in science remains and delegitimizes other scientific claims. If we can’t be honest about something every parent knows, what else might we be lying about? Confusion about this issue leads to inane propositions, such as a pro-choice doctor testifying to Congress asserting that men can give birth. When people are shamed into silence about the obvious male advantages in almost all sports (but note women do as well or better in small bore rifle competition, and no man can match the flexibility of female gymnasts) and when transgender women compete in women’s sports, it endangers the vulnerable. When children are taught that all sex differences are entirely grounded in mere identity (whether self-chosen or culturally-imposed) and are in no way the result of biology, more “masculine” girls and more “feminine” boys may become confused about their sex, or sexual orientation, and harmful stereotypes can take over. The sudden rapid rise in the number of young girls diagnosed with gender dysphoria is a warning sign of how dangerously disoriented our culture can become.

Pathologizing gender nonconforming behavior often does the opposite of what proponents intend by creating stereotypes where none existed. Boys are told that if they like dolls, they are really girls trapped with male organs, while girls who display interests in sports or science are told they are boys trapped with female organs and born in the wrong body. Feminine boys, who might end up being homosexual, are encouraged to start down the road towards irreversible medical interventions, hormone blockers, and infertility. Like gay conversion therapy before, such practices can shame individuals for feeling misaligned with their birth sex and encourage them to resort to hormone “therapy” and/or surgery to change their bodies to reflect this new identity. Can that be truly seen as progressive and liberating?

The push for a biologically sexless society is an arrogant utopian vision that cuts us off from our evolutionary history, promotes the delusion that humans are not animals, and undercuts respecting each individual for their unique individuality. Sex is neither simply a matter of socialization, nor a personal choice. Making such assertions without understanding the profound role that an initial biological asymmetry in gamete size plays in sexual selection is neither scientific nor sensible. 

-

Robert Lynch is an evolutionary anthropologist at Penn State who specializes in how biology, the environment, and culture transact to shape life outcomes. His scientific research includes the effect of religious beliefs on social mobility, sex differences in social relationships, the impact of immigration on social capital, how social isolation can promote populism, and the evolutionary function of laughter.

==

I've said before that I learned more about evolution as a result of combatting evolution denial from the religious than I ever did at school. It's similarly true that I've learned more about sex, biology, chromosomes, genes and hormones as a result of the sex-denialism and anti-science attitudes of the gender cult.

[wind-rider]

hi hi! what are some fun facts about your wip? :3

Hi hi hello oh gods you have NO idea how enthusiastic I am to share the brainworms that have infested me for the past six years

Fun facts, you say? Hm, that implies they have to be fun, so I suppose my essay on how the environment the pov culture developed in influenced their culture and mythology and superstitions even into the more secular modern day will have to wait. I'll get back to you on that one (please ask me about this I am frothing at the mouth going insane-) Ahem. Anyway. Here we go:

The base concept is that there's a certain subset of humans that are born with the genetic potential to develop abilities! This is a recessive trait with far too much detail on the genetics front because genetics fixation? Aha what's that? In any case, these people are referred to as Cyrin!

These abilities can develop at any point in their lives- from the moment of birth to the golden years of old age. However, it is usually triggered by a period of high stress accompanied by an adrenaline response, and thus usually develops somewhere between preteen and late teenagehood, because school is hella stressful and so is Being A Teenager. Hormones have a little to do with it, but moreso that they facilitate the higher stress levels rather than trigger ability development (coloquially referred to as the Change, but in a scientific setting is called Metamorphosis)

Metamorphosis is, biologically, a massive spike of a hormone called Metamorphase (creative, I know), but colloquially shortened to the sort-of correct Biorase (which is, technically, the name for it after it's been extracted and processed. Which I will get to.) that a) triggers one's abilities and b) triggers the bodily changes to accommodate said abilities. It's a little like really horrible puberty that lasts about a week and can happen at any time in your life and has a high chance of Killing You, Actually

Metamorphosis, for a long time, was pretty lethal. Certain abilities' development is easier on the body, and so Cyrin with those abilities were vastly more common due to, well, Not Dying. Symptoms vary depending on the ability, but usually involve an extremely high fever, widespread autoimmune response against new tissue growth, severe migraines and occasionally swelling around the brain, dizziness, and severe nausea and digestive upset.

Modern medical advancements helped bring the death rate way down! But! In the process, they figured out what Metamorphase really is, and now it's... really valuable. Oops.

On the plus side, it's now in the government's best interest to keep all their Cyrin alive! The downside, however, is that all Cyrin basically have liquid gold in their veins that Everyone Wants.

Essentially, it's a catalyst of sorts that allows for widespread fine control over a body's cell growth, with the bonus ability to do fine pre-programmed adjustments to an organism's DNA and encourage the spread and growth of those modified cells. Useful for developing certain traits that allow a Cyrin to survive high temperatures or control flames with minimal skin damage- also very useful for a hell of a lot of medical applications. And it has proved almost impossible to synthesise. Oh dear.

Fast forward a couple decades, and here we have Protusol Labs, a government-run laboratory that the president sort-of heads and spends most of his time in because he doesn't really like being president that much. His son can handle the politics side of things for him! It's fine! This will have no lasting consequences!

Anyway one of Protusol's primary projects is Project Biomorph, aka, using Biorase (extracted and processed Metamorphase) to test directly on humans and Cyrin for applications of eliminating organ and limb rejection in transplants, and diagnosing and treating genetic disorders in developing embryos. The methods are questionable, but they do have good intentions. Mostly. Some of it is just 'fuck around and find out' and boy are they.

Each project is designated its own ID string! Because we love granular organization systems in this house yes we DO

One project, the one nominally testing limb and organ rejection, has the subject ID as follows: PB-GM-G(gen#)-M(mark#)

PB - Project Biomorph; GM - Grafted Metamorph; G - subject generation; M - mark, aka subject number within that generation, chronological.

One of our POVs, Aaron, is one of the GMs- one of the first, actually. He's also the president's son. This has absolutely no lasting consequences I assure you.

There's also another project, with the following ID: PB-CMW-G(gen#)-M(mark#)

CMW stands for Chimera Metamorph - Winged.

I wonder what that could be :)

Oh yeah there's also a guy who was designed and raised to be basically a fully biological android with no free will who follows orders unquestionably but his project was declared a failure when he imprinted on one of the scientist's kids as a toddler and developed free will and full sentience out of the power of We're Best Friends Now. He's fine don't worry about him there's absolutely no lasting consequences there either. None at all!

Said scientist's kid is an absolute ray of sunshine even as an adult now. Aaron fucking hates him. Their dynamic is glorious.

Hmm I think I might have lost track of the whole 'fun fact' format of this. Oh well.

I'll stop there before this gets stupid long because that's mostly just the stuff revolving around One Of The POVs. There's three others. Help.

Feel free to ask any follow-up questions, or poke me about other POVs or lore things or- anything, really. I can ramble about this story for hours. Clearly. Thanks for asking!!