Look at this picture:
Posted by Pazuzu | Posted in Fundamental Biology, pseudo-science, Science | Posted on 4:37 AM
15

what do you think of it? What is wrong with it? Nothing? Come on there’s a terrible flaw in it! Look closer. Notice how Dr Jordan Tang holds the Micropipette, that’s not only unorthodox and against the protocol but it’s also impossible to achieve. Notice how this guy holds the micropipette:

You see the micropipette is not called micropipette for nothing it is an instrument used for minute quantities and accurate applications, and Dr Tang is obviously manipulating a cell culture preparation. How is he going to control the micropipette if he holds it like that? We should only hold it like that when we are sucking up substance from a recipient and no precision is required. You see that’s the cool thing about a micropipette, it’s automated it only takes the exact amount of substance, with remarkable precision.
This picture just frustrates me! Now of course Dr Tang knows how to hold a micropipette, but you see this is just Hollywood work, he wasn’t actually manipulating that stuff he was just posing for the camera. You see people like Dr Tang is a head of a research unit he probably never bothers to work on any real manipulation, he has small Indian/South American assistants to do all the hard labor while he works on the abstract aspect. By the way, his findings are pretty interesting, Human Trials Begin For Enzyme Inhibitor Alzheimer's Drug, no I won’t annoy you with the annoying details, but this advance has actually had some success among scientific literature lately… Anyway, back to the subject.
Now what I find most annoying about this is the lack of professionalism in the article that was posted, not that the site is unprofessional, no they give very interesting information, I am in fact pretty much addicted to it. But notice the picture they have posted, so lame! Just so that they would post a picture! They didn’t have to, they didn’t even label the picture well. Now I don’t the poor design of this site, it’s ok, it’s about the content not the looks, but what bothers me is the Bibliography in their articles:
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
Which news release? At which date? Which page? Tell us something, ANYTHING! But still I read this site everyday.


