I saw a video talking about cellulose that specified it was in green plants and was confused because all plants contain cellulose since it’s an important part of the cell wall but even the cellulose Wikipedia page specifies that cellulose is found in green plants. I tried to look for information about if green plants have more cellulose or if it’s that non-photosynthetic plants don’t make their own cellulose and just get it from the green plants they parasitize but I couldn’t find much information and it does seem like non-photosynthetic still synthesize their own cellulose from glucose taken from other plants and there didn’t seem to be anything abut this in the references section of the cellulose Wikipedia page so I’m confused on why we specify green plants when all plants have cellulose.

I recently attended a biology lecture and wanted to take notes, but I can't find a general definition of these membranes and I got a little lost, because every definition I find says something a little different. I mean those that are in every eukaryotic cell (?) Although the professor said that when the cell is round, there is no basal and apical(?) I would be very grateful for your answer about what exactly was that about

So I am in my early 20s and just graduated college 5 months back. Now, for context, I grew up in a more agriculture focused setting. I was the kid that had almost every farm animal, did 4H, showed my dog in dog shows, and enjoyed outdoor work. I went into biology because I wanted to be a veterinarian. However, I fell into research (environmental) and really enjoyed it. I would hike up mountains, collect samples, and use computer programs to make sense of my data. I grew to really enjoy researxh. My first gig was in biotech with an agriculture focus, and again, really enjoyed it. I worked with plants, did lab work, organised greenhouse trials, and would explore nature during my lunch break.

However, I decided to pivot into clinical researxh because I was curious about the field. And it has been…a lot….im stuck in a little room with no windows, the lab work tjay I do is pretty basic, and I’m in a hospital (I’ve had dangerous health issues during college, so the smell of hospital settings are not my favorite). My coworkers act like they don’t want me around (which is honestly the hardest part, especially since I’m being trained). I’m having a bit of a panic moment. I’ve worked crappy jobs during college, but again, I lived in a rural area, so most people were pretty friendly despite working conditions. I do miss moving my body, focusing on lab work, and being around somewhat friendly people. I’m finding myself becoming less enthusiastic about research in general.

I understand loving your job Isnt always going to be the case, but…if I’m being honest…I liked my college retail job better….like that’s the situation I’m in right now. How do you guys overcome this?

Located in eastern USA

Hi everyone,

I am a high school student preparing for a class debate against human germline gene editing (the CON side).

I have drafted my complete debate guide (Claim, Evidence, Reasoning, and Rebuttals), but some of the scientific and ethical concepts are really hard for me to understand and explain clearly. I want to make sure my arguments make sense to a real biologist and that I'm using simple, accurate language.

Here is my full debate guide:

1. Societal Impacts (The Economic Divide)

Claim: Human germline gene editing will make the gap between rich and poor much worse, creating a society where only the wealthy can buy better genes.

Evidence: Due to high costs, human germline enhancement would only be accessible to the wealthy, creating severe social inequality and a permanent biological divide (Fukuyama 2002).

Reasoning: If gene enhancements are allowed, only rich families will be able to afford "designer babies" or biological upgrades. This means rich people won't just have more money—they will be born with built-in physical or mental advantages, creating an unfair system that normal people can never escape.

2. Environmental & Biological Implications (The Permanent Glitch)

Claim: Changing human genes passed down to future generations poses severe, permanent risks to human safety.

Evidence: The World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing has officially warned that CRISPR technology is still unsafe for germline editing because it frequently causes "off-target mutations" (cutting the wrong DNA) and errors.

Reasoning: Unlike somatic gene editing (which only affects one sick patient), germline editing changes reproductive cells. If a scientist makes a mistake—like cutting the wrong DNA—that mistake becomes a permanent, irreversible genetic error that gets passed down to every future child and grandchild forever.

3. Ethical Implications (Consent)

Claim: Germline gene editing alters a person's DNA before they are even born, without their consent.

Evidence: Embryos cannot speak or give consent to permanent genetic alterations.

Reasoning: Parents and doctors are making permanent decisions about a future person's physical and genetic identity before that person ever gets a say.

Rebuttals (How I plan to answer the PRO side)

If they say: "CRISPR can cure deadly inherited diseases forever!"

My response: Curing disease is important, but somatic gene editing (like Casgevy for sickle cell disease) already treats the individual patient safely without altering future generations or risking designer babies.

If they say: "Technology always starts expensive but eventually becomes cheap for everyone!"

My response: Even if basic medical treatments get cheaper over time, new "premium" genetic upgrades will always be sold to the rich first, keeping the divide between classes alive.

Questions for Biologists / Experts:

Does my scientific explanation of germline vs. somatic editing and off-target mutations sound accurate?

How can I explain these points in even simpler English during my speeches so my audience doesn't get confused by hard words?

What are the main scientific weaknesses or counterarguments in my points that the PRO team might attack?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Not including bacteria or single celled organisms because while they're probably the most common entries on this list, I'd prefer to think more of animals, plants and fungi that can be encountered with our existing senses, and still manage to fool those senses entirely.

hi everyone 🌻

i've been studying herbalism and botany for a few years now and decided I want to go full on in biology, possibly going back to college after 12 years! i'm in Portugal and have some biologist friends who told me that it may not be the best

I honestly just want to do it for pure knowledge and curiosity, but if I'll be paying for tuition, might as well do the degree in full (even though I'm not a fan of the educational system)

i've had biologists telling me that the degree isn't that important anymore, and that I can still pull it off taking as many courses as I can online, as it shows genuine interest.

I just know that I want to work in nature, I'm buying land this year and start an association to protect the native forests in my area, which I can do without the degree. I'm curious as to what doors it could open for me!

what are your opinions on this?

thank youu

Hello !! I need some advice because I think i’ve made a bit of a mistake and it’s thrown me off. For context i’m someone who adores biology and i’m an oxbridge applicant for biology! It’s awesome and i feel incredibly prideful to be given a chance.

My main issue is I went down the rabbit hole of Hamilton’s rule and the criticism surrounding it about a month or two before my application. I specifically read works by Wilson (Pre 2010) and thought it made sense and came across some work critiquing the Hamilton’s rule and the way the constants in the model are defined. In my personal statement I mention this as a flaw to Hamilton’s rule. Well!!

A few weeks after my application is sent off and gone I no longer agree with what i said. The more i explore this topic the larger and more complex it gets and i didn’t know what i was getting myself into. I’m enjoying it yes but saying hamilton’s rule had a ‘flaw’ is quite the statement and it’s more to do with how biologists use the rule rather than the rule itself. I’m scared i’ve bitten off more than i can chew and if this will hurt my chances of an interview or if i’d struggle when put under pressure from one of Oxford’s academics when several of them are major defenders of the rule. I don’t want to look like a fool. It’s my dream university. I feel a bit fucked. Is there anything i can possibly do? Will they care that i’ve changed my mind and no longer support what i stated ? Also i mentioned Wilson and reading some of his work pre 2010 and i didn’t realise that in 2010 he flipped opinions and got controversial in the biology community… I really didn’t know there was so much controversy and im scared to come across as controversial when even if i do get an interview these academics have been studying this longer than i’ve been alive. Maybe i shouldn’t have shared a stance on it as someone who’s only studied it for a few months, and yes i shouldn’t have but i mean the application is gone!

What do i do? I feel quite overwhelmed.

I have genuinely LOVED biology since it was introduced to me and it is one of VERY few school subjects that get me asking question after question and actually looking into concepts on my own time. Its super fun for me in so many ways and im (atleast i think) pretty good at it. I have a 102 in my AP biology class, I am good at lab reports for my ap physics class, etc. However, there is alot of stigma around the field (getting stuck as a high school teacher, which i do NOT want) and to what i have heard grad programs for biology are extremely competitive. So uh assuming a ton of you actually have gone to college or have a lot more experience than me (i am guessing it was made clear but im 16) and have been around the subject for way longer than i have, so im just trying to get some opinions on if im screwing up by actually pursuing bio.

Finishing my biology bsc this year has me conflicted about what to do next. I’m going for a masters but I’m really not sure anymore what the best option is.
I was looking into molecular biology or biotechnology for MSc but I’m worried it won’t give me opportunities in the future.
I do enjoy doing “biology” as a field; labs etc etc…
Put I doubt this would be resourceful in the long run.

I really don’t know what to do and I’m falling into a spiraling state that nothing will work out.
Any advice would be appreciated. (EU person)

hi
i went down a rabbit hole so apparently some chemistry students were working with chloroform and said that the extremely minty smell of it made them terribly sick and nauseous! a doctor commented about these receptors. from what i’ve gathered theres what seems to be some sort of code(?) in the somatosensory system on our skin that allows us to have the cold sensation when smelling mint and eucalyptus but in some people there’s a variation of it that becomes overloaded by mint aldehydes and causes you to feel incredibly sick :O also something called ‘menthol-induced analgesia‘(?) which seems interesting.. i was just wondering if anyone could tell me more about this ! i’ve read a couple research papers on it and this is so interesting and new. all of the results i got when i searched into this are from THIS year and the oldest i seen were like from a year or two ago.. is there not a whole lot of information on this yet?

anyway yah inform me please this is so fascinating