That would be very helpful 🥴

I’m currently writing a small literature review on tgf-b and SMAD signalling in cancer for uni rn

And I’m really confused why this one paper’s talking about how miR-520h induces the tgf-b/smad7 pathway but also binds to and suppresses smad7

Like why on earth is it activating the tgf-b/smad7 pathway, a pathway that stops stuff like the epithelial mesenchynal transition, if it’s just going to bind to smad7 anyway???

Worst thing is, I can’t find any other papers on why this actually happens

I swear I’m just dumb at times ;-;

These kinds of charts are usually used to compare things that, in this case, wouldn’t be science, but humourously could be considered science if given a chance

But the other guy is right-if you don’t follow the scientific method and don’t try to describe your findings in ways that attempt to better understand the universe, then that’s not science. That’s bias

I don’t know why, but my danger sense is off the charts rn

While that’s correct and all, it still irks me when somebody uses a word that has a shorter, older variant. (Gives side-eye to orientated)

I feel like the only person in the world who dislikes oreos

After Ublock, its easily my favourite addon

My respect for pearl oyster mushrooms just went up by 50%

I always roll my eyes whenever I see a “you can’t do that because you’re a woman” character in a show, and then I’m always reminded that these people actually exist

Librewolf be like:

I’m confused by this quote - no sane person would assume a male did something just because we say man did it. In this instance, man would simply be referencing humanity

The want to define whether a male or female did it without any evidence is simply sexist