"Scientists know that the gut microbiome is important to proper digestion, and they're trying to figure out if an external microbiome can be similarly beneficial to skin." That's not true. Pick up any microbiology textbook and it'll tell you that your skin flora is essential for it's health. Also, it is not removed by simple washing (soap and water). That just gets rid of excess bugs, and their by-products (that smell). No-one is trying to figure out IF the skin flora is necessary for it's health. If you remove it, you will be prone to colonisation by the bad stuff, just like the effects of when you take antibiotics in your guts.

This is very true. And it's not just in software. I work with a specific (hardware) science tool. Development of this tool, and making it's capabilities to more researchers could boost research for hundreds of researchers worldwide. I develop this inbetween those projects which lead to "RESULTS" by which we mean papers. This is because my funding agency will not fund a project to develop a tool for science, only "true science", or something technological which *might* lead to something that could be sold in the millions.

OK, from the actual article (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/am1010964 ), the researchers made a polymeric coating on glass surfaces. They proved that it can resist 24hrs immersion in water. how does this mean that it is "permanent"?? It could be easily removed by repeated cleaning procedures, which is the major problem with current antifog coatings as well. Secondly, the idea that it will work with ANY plastic surface is ludicrous...since they only made it on glass..I can think of many polymers it is unlikely to work with. But I don't KNOW because I did not try it either!

"good research in physics is typically awarded by a PRL paper"...yes, because PRL publish 3500+ papers a year! I'm not saying PRL is not a great journal, but it's just not the most prestigious physics journal... "premier" in terms of number of citations, yes.

Right; I was being sarcastic, sorry, I'm not American, I forget. But, atoms!=particles, so his QD contains NO particles.

Here's the actual article: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.046805 . The summary linked is crap : "The quantum dot developed by Wolkow's team is much smaller; less than a nanometre in diameter and containing only one or two particles" It's a silicon atom. How many particles in that? I guess the author was talking about subatomic particles, right?? They also claim that Physical Review Letters, is considered the world's premier physics journal. By whom? It was 12th in the ranking in 2007. Finally, they say "The discovery is a highly anticipated milestone in nanotechnology circles." Uhhh?? I don't think so. As usual, this is self-publicity disguised as news.

Well, the people who add the tags don't read the actual article...tags only show what the majority of people who saw the headline think! The authors themselves say:"we cannot eliminate the possibility that hallucination-proneness could be a cause rather than a result of increased caffeine intake. This would be consistent with the finding that caffeine intake can act as a coping mechanism to bring relief from problems". Yeah, I'd be drinking something stronger than coffee if I was hallucinating.