I prefer two space since I believe it looks better. However, over the past few years I've transitioned to using only one space. Many grant applications / abstracts / scientific writing have character limits. Using one space instead of two can make a significant difference when you're fighting for every word.

Are people really calling up doctors and asking them to perform surgery on them for free?

Yes. I have a PhD in immunology - I'm not a medical doctor, though I do teach second year medical students. If a family member gets sick (especially the children), I get called. If a family doctor suggests a treatment, I get called for a second opinion. Swine flu outbreak? I was receiving dozens of emails a day from concerned family members. So while we (and I use 'we' very loosely as I'm not an MD) aren't asked to 'perform surgery', we are asked to provide free medical services.

While I certaily wasn't at that talk (and I suspect that neither were you), I'm willing to bet that you don't completely understand what the talk was about. I'm on the faculty of a top tier reserch insitution conducting immunological research - I've had several Chinese graduate students, have sat on the international admissions committee, and have given the talk that you describe to our new Chinese students. The problem isn't one of ethics, but one of culture. The Chinese don't regard plagiarism the same way we do - in fact, the educational system encourages it in a way as it is an honor, of sorts, to 'plagiarize' your mentor. Additionally, a lot of these students don't have confidence in their english, so whey they write they occassionally take an idea from another article and copy it verbatim thinking "that's exactly what I was thinking, and I don't have to worry about incorrect english" - in most cases, there is not an intention of deceit. The Chinese certainly have their issues (admitting mistakes and nationalism), but I wouldn't call them unethical.

Here's an example of a similar non-newtonian fluid protecting an egg from breaking after being dropped:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMmhNbj4K68

The protection has less to do with absorption reduction than a distribution of force.

it is not a good thing.

I'm sure Grace Wang would agree with you.

In brief, Grace Wang was an international student at Duke and dared to try an initiate a discussion between the pro-Tibet and pro-Chinese sides of a protest. After being attacked on forums such as mitbbs.com "Online Vigilantes" decided to bring these attacks to the real world by posting her personal information (her student visa application) and providing maps to her parents' house (which was defaced, causing her parents to go into hiding).

Defending kittens are one thing, but as with "think of the children", it rarely stops there.

Thank you. I think that many of the individuals who call for a third party would be unhappy no matter who that third party was, as many of the calls that I see for a third party seem to be "I want a politician who totally agrees with me on every issue". That simply isn't going to happen. Recognize the good, try to change the bad - and realize that some people believe that you're wrong, just as you believe they're wrong. That won't change with a third party.

Thank you. When I saw DLC, I kept reading it as "Dynamin Light Chain", which I know is wrong for this site (and makes no sense for Sony). As Google is my friend, I googled DLC and saw "Democratic Leadership Council", "Digital Learning Commons", "Digital Library of the Commons", among others - but no "Downloadable Content". Google "Sony DLC", and you get a bunch of hardware. So I read the article - it took me a few seconds to realize that what DLC meant, as I wasn't thinking to look in the middle of a word for the meaning of "L". I don't mind acronyms in the title, as long as they're spelled out in the summary.

Training foreign students served two purposes. First, so we have an opportunity to hire the best and brightest. Secondly, so we can expose them to our culture. What better way is there to bring about change in a country than to train some of their top academic leaders? This is how you bring human rights to China and reduce corruption in Mexico.

I can't say I'm terribly concerned about your proposed scenario. Unlike computer programming, bioengineering takes quite a bit more capital. Let's say you want to insert a protein into a bacteria - first you need to create the cDNA (you'll need a PCR machine or water baths (heh), expensive enzymes, the ability to pipette uL amounts, random primers, and a source of mRNA), then you'll need to isolate the protein's cDNA, next you'll have to clone out the gene (do you have access to a sequencer?), and put the gene in a plasmid that will express the protein (you'll have to buy one as you won't be able to reasonably make one). Let's see, you'll also need amp/kan, LB plates, a warm room, some media, and a shaker (unless you want to use sub-sub-optimum conditons). After this, you'll have to express your plasmid in the bacteria - did I mention that, typically, bacteria that express the protein will be at a selective disadvantage? Wait, you want to stably integrate your protein into the bacterial genome? That's a whole, more difficult, can of worms. So you want to modify a virus... where are you planning on getting the viral vector? What type of virus are you attempting to modify? Some are very difficult to work with. Making one can be a PhD thesis in and of itself. Infecting eukaryotic cells is not easy either - a lot of money is being spent on trying to increase the efficiency for anti-cancer therapy.

Unlike computer programming, these aren't projects that people are (realistically) able to do in their basement. Often we give the simplest experiments (just the cloning part), where all the reagents are present and the knowledge base is easily available, to summer students - and often times they fail. I don't worry about the rogue 'biohacker' next door (all the more power to them - maybe they'll learn something about science). I worry about rogue governments - particulary ones that believe God will protect them.

The Web of Trust proposal sounds a lot like the website Faculty of 1000. I also would suggest looking at the website for the Web of Science. If I cite another's work, I've reviewed it and, at least on some level, agree with the findings. I'm certainly not going to cite that I think are bogus.

I'm not convinced that this is true. The only people (besides the library) that receive print publications receive them as a part of their professional membership fees (or as part of a training grant). Most scientists, myself included, simply rely on the email TOC (which we receive much sooner than the hard copy) or go to the websites directly. I suspect that most journals 'make their cash' from institutional subscriptions, professional fees (in the case of Blood), and/or publishing fees.