AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Not since he invented time travel.

TheStranger wrote:Isnt Carl Sagan the Carl Sagan of our time?

How many young people that could stand to be inspired to dedicate their lives to science know who Carl Sagan is?

If you enjoy science enough to want to dedicate your life to it, you will know who Carl Sagan is.

And now Neil Tyson is going to inspire people and introduce them to science that they can enjoy. You're assuming people get enough exposure to science as is.

I cant speak for the rest of the world, but when I grew up, science was a mandatory subject in school. I hated it, because Ive never been interested in science in itself, but it was there

Biology and microbiology caught my interest enough to study them at an advanced level - however chemistry and physics do little more than hurt my head a lot.

I'm not sure if engineering and/or mechanics qualify as scientific subjects - but I've always been interested in those.

Ive always been terrible at anything useful. Computers, math, physics, chemistry, engineering, shop class, all of it. My best subjects were English, Swedish, History and Religion.

I was generally 'pushed' towards art and design-oriented subjects; On reflection I think advanced English literature would have been just as useful for my current aspirations.

However, the best jobs are probably in the sciences so I probably would've done better to have focussed on my aptitude for biology (I'm not one who sees the appeal in cutting open and studying dead animals or people though).

If I could do my education over I'd try to organise it more around biology/design so I could potentially get into developing nanomachines/microrobots for use in living tissue - I think that's the future direction of medicine (with antibiotics becoming progressively less effective).

Ive never been good at anything except art, Ive always had a passion for comics, which is what I want to do most of all. Though considering the average pay rate for that job even if you ARE somewhat successfull, Im probably better off doing menial work my whole life. Which I suck at too.

The best jobs are in engineering and economics, unless you get a PhD you'll have quite a bit of trouble finding a job with a physics degree as well. Not comparable to a philosophy degree or something perhaps, but still important to keep in mind.

I was thinking more in regard to chemistry graduates - I gather that there's quite an uptake of chemistry graduates in the UK in regard to developing new medicines and drugs - but my information might be out of date.

I've always thought of physics being something that went hand-in-hand with engineering - if you're talking about 'pure maths' however, that's probably less true.

Physics is very important for engineering, but there's more to it than that. Physics degrees are more theoretical and they do not cover material study, complex machinery and such.

I was thinking more in regard to chemistry graduates - I gather that there's quite an uptake of chemistry graduates in the UK in regard to developing new medicines and drugs - but my information might be out of date.

I don't know how it is in the UK but here you generally want a pharmacy or medicine degree if you want to work in that business. They need some chemistry specialists but to a lesser extent, and there are too many chemistry graduates for the job openings.

From what I've seen the Chemistry and Physics majors, like Syo said, are more focused on theoretical stuff and studying the fundamental aspects of that field (getting down to very specific compounds or physics on the subatomic scale, etc). They don't see much practical application like a medical or engineering degree would, though a person majoring in one of the more "general" subject areas like those may still be able to get into those fields.

Now, if there was only a "practical" counterpart to my Biology major that isn't medical school...

I don't know if counterparts exist in your education system, but I'd suggest Biotechnology or Bio-Engineering.

Thought you guys might find this article interesting: "Hormones may usher abused girls into early adulthood."

The article talks about a recent study performed at University of Wisconsin-Madison, wherein a group of children - boys and girls, half with abusive pasts - were put into stressful situations (math tests and such) to observe the type of hormones their bodies created.

Stressful situations normally cause the bodies of children and young adults to produce cortisol, a fight-or-flight hormone that preps your body for action. However, in this study, all the girls that came from highly abusive environments produced excessive levels of oxytocin. Oxytocin is a hormone normally associated with sexual behaviors (the "cuddle hormone"), and is normally found during sexual intercourse, childbirth, and pair bonding. None of the other children - even the boys with abusive pasts - produced oxytocin.

Oxytocin is already known to be present when people are anxious (maybe to help cope with situations, I don't know) but the fact that it was only present in girls in this situation is interesting. The article goes on to speculate if it's a form of dysfunction and whether this can help treat young abused girls, as they have a history of having difficulties growing up. (Abusive partners, teen pregnancy, etc.)

All-in-all this made me think of Stockholm Syndrome, tbh.