Hi! I had to leave the nursing field due to getting sick back in 2024. I am getting ready to go back to school now, but will not be able to work outside of the home full time. I took microbiology so many times, along with biotechnology and of course biology classes. I really love biology.

Is it worth it for me to get a bachelor’s in biology? Or due to me having to work from home, at least most of the time, will I not be able to find any success with this degree?

I live in the US!

For reference ill be graduating this december with a major in marine bio and minor in environmental. I have experience working under Masters and Phd students in labs focused on enviromental work (with a focus in marine bio), two differnet labs to be exact. I also have some other work/internship experience that could maybe have some relevance. In yalls opinion, would most recruiters find this above average, or just normal. I really am trying to get a job in my field, even with a bachelors, i need a job to make money, and im not trying to go for a masters until im somewhat good on money (plus slightly burnt out). Honestly, even a job not in my field that still gives me some lab experience would be great, i live in an area with a "diverse" job market (Hampton, Va). So yea, kinda yapping but already been applying for jobs since start of the semester, yall think ima be ok, or am i just cooked.

I've just watched 'Disease X' on the BBC and, while I was already aware of this, the vast majority of diseases (espeically viruses) seem to be transmitted to humans by animals.

A lot of farm animals get infected (by bats for example), then the pathogen spreads when people consume the animal produce (e.g. H2N1 viruses can spread via dairy produce if cattle infected) or when farmers are in close contact with the farm animals.

This got me thinking: are vegans less likely to catch some nasty diseases due to the lack of meat and dairy consumption, and are plants less likely to transmit pathogens?

Would another global pandemic be less likely if the majority of people were vegan or at least consumed less meat and dairy than they currently do?

In theory there'd be less contact with vectors such as bats and rodents since less of their habitats would be encroached upon due to farming AND less people would get infected by viruses transmitted by animals (like the nipah virus) or found in animal produce?

Sorry this is so long and I hope it makes sense :)

Hello everyone! I have a college group project I am working on right now where our group designs a hypothetical animal based on fictional planet conditions, and I am running into some issues.

Fitting all the body systems together has been a bit of an issue, because I seem to find a new contradiction every time I settle on something.

Right now I am really stuck on the circulatory system especially. We decided that due to the high UV radiation of our planet and varying extreme temperatures, we will have to have an endoskeleton instead of an exoskeleton so we can have an endotherm.

Originally I was going to settle on an open circulatory system for the benefit of low pressure since our planet has lower pressure too, but I realize now that that is unlikely to support an endoskeleton if I am not mistaken. So now I am looking at closed circulatory system possibilities, but I need to figure out a way to HAVE a closed one without it being too high-pressure. I am currently looking into the concepts of accessory hearts or heart-like structures to disperse pressure and maybe larger diameter vessels.

We don't plan to make the organism very big (maybe squirrel sized or smaller if need be) or super active 99% of each day-night cycle, but yeah. Below I have attached our planet description with deeper details. Any help would be appreciated:

Gravity: Small planet, low gravity, about half that of Earth. Very slow rotation. No major elevation variations or mountains on the planet.

Atmosphere: Atmosphere contains about 30% oxygen and about 2% carbon dioxide. The rest is a mixture of nitrogen and helium. The atmosphere is thin and atmospheric pressure is 20% lower than Earth.

Climate and Temperature: Days start cold but get increasingly warmer to about 50°C before cooling again.
Nights get down to about 4°C. No major seasonal differences.

Solar Radiation: Days are very long. Day/night cycles last about 340 Earth hours (rather than our 24). So one day on Alpha lasts two Earth weeks. Lots of intense sunlight, UV radiation, and heat during the daylight hours (lasting 7 Earth days). Nights (also 7 days long) are very cold due to the thin atmosphere.

Water: Due to drastic temperature differences, weather is often windy and stormy. It rains every
"morning" for 40-60 hours. Temporary ponds and lakes fill up with
freshwater in the "morning," then slowly dry during the daylight hours. Most water evaporates by nightfall. A very few large, permanent bodies of water are very salty,
supporting only halophilic bacteria. Constant erosion from
intense rainfall and runoff keeps land elevation relatively flat.

Dominant Vegetation: Dominant trees are very tall due to low gravity. Tree trunks are thick and storm-resistant. Sugar-filled roots grow very deep. Trees open their feathery leaves after heavy rains to absorb light, but curl leaves into a hard shell at night to conserve water.

Other Important Features: Due to huge and frequent rainstorms, soil is poor and heavily eroded. Lots of lightning causes frequent wildfires that kill small plants but rarely harms dominant trees. Lots of static electricity in the air. There are lots of small, fast growing plants that sprout and grow during the long day, flower, drop
seeds, and then die during the long night. There are lots of insect-like creatures. Few large animals are readily apparent, though planetary probes may have just frightened them away.

Wetlands are biomes where the soil is covered with water, making it oxygen-poor. Why are wetlands so much more biodiverse than other ecosystems (including forests & grassland), supporting up to 40% of plant and animal species while covering only 6% of the Earth's surface?

Hi all

I am a Masters student (agricultural extension and innovation) carrying out a minor thesis and I need ideas. I have an interest in environmental science and sustainability, government funded schemes, and how farmers interact with these. I have an internship as an agricultural advisor in Ireland so I would have plenty of access to farmers that would be willing to interview or complete surveys.
I’m struggling to come up with solid research questions and any ideas would be much appreciated. It would likely be something social science based as I have no access to a lab.
The most popular idea at the minute is looking at attitudes and uptake to environmental schemes in the west of Ireland, potentially integrating the difference in approach from male vs female farmers

Any help at all is much appreciated

I am writing a fantasy book, and a thought just struck me thats gonna need some serious thought. One of the main characters is a large dragon, she is immortal and has been around (mostly in a coma like state) for millions of years. Now that she is up and moving again, in a modern day world, how would she eat?

My initial answer was, "she is semi-aquatic, she can dive into the ocean to search for food. And perhaps is like a snake, and doesn't need to eat often."

But the animals that inhibit the planet today aren't nearly as big as they were millions of years ago, and for a creature her size she would still need to eat a LOT.

This is a fantasy book, there are dragons and magic and elves, I'm not exactly going for scientific accuracy, but I still want it to make as much sence as possible.

Say she is more like a godzilla type creature, and rapidly evolves (or, maybe not rapidly, but over the course of her life as the world changed and she slept) would I be able to explain with any sort of accuracy that she, over time, changed her biology, and is mostly sustained through the process of photosynthesis?

Her personality is already that of a giant black cat, and she spends most of her free time sleeping in the sun, so at least that already works out.

I dont need anything that a scientist would read and think, "ya, this makes sence," just your average fantasy reader.

Edit: every time I post on reddit (which isn't often) I expect some sort of hate or negativity, thats just the nature of this app (and the internet in general) So im sad but also very happy to say im suprised not a single person has said anything rude, and every single comment has been helpful. Which makes sence considering this is a biology sub, smart people do tend to be less toxic. So shout out to all the helpful, intelligent people who have taken time out of their day to help me. Yall are the best.

Можетли человек стать гермофродитом(это просто для забавы)

Например если у человека например у женщини будет половой орган мужины полнистю функциональной и в тоже время тоже функцияналный женский орган и на оборот то будет ли это читатся гермафродитом? можете объяснить те кто шарят за биологию я ешё школьник и мне это интересно.

So I would love to study biology however it’s that dam calculus 1 requirement that I would need for my local university’s requirement. I don mot know anything from Algebra1- Algebra 2 Trig precalc; nothing :(. So thats what’s really inhibiting-me from actually choosing that for my major. Eventually I would like to
Become a CLS or PA if not go for a Masters in bio or microbio or something, but stated earlier idk if calculus will come back and bite me on the butt in further my studies hehe. Any thoughts :P
Thank you.

I'd post an image to get the idea across better but the sub doesnt allow for it. long story short im working on designing an alien species for a personal project, though i do like to know biological applications of why things are the way they are before i jump on them just because i prefer to keep things in the realm of plausibility and biological accuracy.

the species im working on isn't to disimilar from the sangheili (elites) from the halo franchise, though one of the differences is they have five fingers opposed to the four the elites have. (least thats what i planned) with the middle being well... similar to a humans middle finger in that its longer then the others.

regardless, all that being said, what would the biological advantages/disadvantages be of having such a hand configuration? would it be not much different from a human hand or does it change anything specific?

Is there a cladogram with everything on it? I want to see everything.

I'm looking for resources that describe any ecosystem in depth. From top to bottom.

I was recently reading about the relationship between kakapo and specific fruit trees, and also about the wild amount of vastly different ecosystems in Madagascar, and I realized I'd really love to read about specific ecosystems. Any ecosystem. This is a super broad question, but if you've ever come across any resource that fits this, and you'd like to share, I'd love to read.

Thank you!

Howdy,

I’m wanting to do some nitrogen limitation studies using Setaria viridis and I’m trying to figure out a way to make shit soil essentially. I’m currently growing my organisms in Sunshine LC1 mix. Does anyone out there have any experience with making a nitrogen-poor growing matrix? Or even just a nutritionally-poor matrix in general? I was thinking of making the mix from scratch using unfertilized peat moss and vermiculite but that still will have some nitrogen I believe. Idk, I’d appreciate anything yall got!

A study suggests crows can make certain decisions twice as fast as humans. What can their rapid decision making tell us about bird cognition and the evolution of intelligence?

I’ve spent nine months investigating Viome’s RNA-based microbiome testing, and after my latest retest, approximately 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed.

That raised a question I think deserves a serious scientific discussion: what biological evidence establishes that those changes are actually justified?
For context, I’ve completed three rounds of Viome testing, alongside bloodwork approximately every two weeks, hundreds of conventional biomarkers, and physician oversight.

Viome uses metatranscriptomic analysis to examine microbial gene expression. Unlike DNA-based approaches, which identify microbial genetic material and functional potential, RNA analysis provides information about which microbial genes are being expressed.

That’s fascinating biology. But I’m interested in what happens after those measurements are collected.
How do we reliably translate changes in microbial gene expression into specific nutritional interventions?
I understand that the microbiome is dynamic. Diet, medications, illness, and other factors can influence microbial activity. An 80% change in supplement recommendations doesn’t automatically mean something went wrong.

But it doesn’t establish that the revised recommendations are better, either.
A 2025 international consensus statement published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology raised broader concerns about the clinical usefulness of commercial microbiome testing.

The international expert panel concluded that evidence remains insufficient to support its widespread routine clinical use.

Full paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343204/

The consensus statement doesn’t invalidate metatranscriptomics. It highlights the distinction between measuring microbial biology and demonstrating that those measurements can reliably guide clinical or nutritional interventions.
My next step is to evaluate Superpower’s DNA-based gut microbiome testing and compare the methodologies.
I’m not expecting identical findings. DNA and RNA measure different aspects of microbial biology, and agreement between two commercial reports wouldn’t establish that either company’s nutritional recommendations are clinically valid.

What interests me is how researchers distinguish meaningful biological signals from variability introduced by sampling, preservation, sequencing depth, normalization, and computational analysis.
For example, how reproducible are microbial RNA expression profiles when samples are collected under comparable conditions?

How confidently can changes in microbial gene expression be connected to actual metabolic activity, metabolite production, or measurable physiological effects in the host?

And when an algorithm responds to those changes by substantially revising a supplement formulation, what independent validation establishes that the new recommendations are more appropriate?
Those seem like three separate scientific challenges: measurement reproducibility, biological interpretation, and intervention validation.

For financial context, the retail-equivalent value of my nine months of Viome testing and personalized supplements was $4,547.

Full disclosure: Viome provided everything complimentary. I received no sponsorship payments, affiliate commissions, referral fees, or cash compensation. I’ve also referred customers without accepting commissions. I’m not affiliated with Superpower or being compensated for the planned comparison.

This isn’t an advertisement or a recommendation to purchase either product. Nor am I suggesting that my individual experience proves or disproves the technology.

I’m interested in the underlying science and whether the evidence supports the recommendations being generated from it.

I’d particularly appreciate input from researchers working in microbiology, metatranscriptomics, microbial ecology, or bioinformatics.

Are there independent studies demonstrating that changes in microbial RNA expression can reliably identify specific nutritional interventions that improve measurable host outcomes?

And if you were evaluating an algorithm that changed 80% of its supplement recommendations after retesting, what evidence would you require before concluding that those changes were biologically justified?

I’d genuinely welcome research supporting these approaches as well as studies challenging them.
I want the technology to succeed. But I also want to understand where the evidence ends and the assumptions begin.

Investigating Variable Biological Maturation and Senescence Cycles in Historical Populations of Desert Climate Regions

Current anthropological models generally assume a consistent biological clock for Homo sapiens, with variations in maturity attributed primarily to nutritional deficiencies that delay puberty. However, a critical review of historical records from the first millennium suggests a contradictory phenomenon that warrants serious investigation: individuals in harsh, high-stress environments, such as the Arabian Peninsula, frequently attained biological and functional adulthood at ages significantly younger than the modern average. This was not merely a social shift in responsibility, but a perceived biological acceleration in strength, reproductive readiness, and physical resilience.

It is worth considering the hypothesis that the human body does not evolve in a linear progression of "improvement," but rather in adaptive waves. Under specific conditions of extreme ecological stress and high-density nutrition, the human phenotype may shift to optimize survival through accelerated early-life development. The implications of such a pattern would challenge fundamental assumptions about the universality of human aging and development.

The proposed investigation focuses on the synergy between "rough" environments and specific dietary catalysts. While settled agricultural societies of the first millennium often suffered from stunted growth due to grain-heavy, nutrient-poor diets, the nomadic populations of the Arabian desert utilized a diet rich in camel milk and dates. This combination provided a potent mix of high-quality proteins, essential minerals, and concentrated energy. When paired with the extreme physical demands of desert survival; constant mobility, thermoregulation in extreme heat, and rigorous labor; this nutritional profile may have acted as a biological catalyst. Rather than merely sustaining the individual, these factors may have triggered a systemic acceleration of musculoskeletal and hormonal development, pushing the individual toward peak functional capacity in their early teens.

The mechanisms underlying such adaptation are likely complex and multifaceted. One primary avenue of explanation involves phenotypic plasticity and epigenetics. It is plausible that extreme environmental stressors "flipped" epigenetic switches, activating genes associated with rapid bone density accumulation and muscle hypertrophy. This would allow the organism to reach a state of "functional adulthood" far earlier than is seen in low-friction modern environments, where such genetic switches may remain dormant. Additionally, the brutal nature of the first-millennium desert environment likely acted as a rigorous filter. Only those with the genetic predisposition for rapid maturation and high physical robustness survived to adulthood, creating a population skewed toward peak biological efficiency. This selection pressure would have reinforced any genetic or epigenetic tendencies toward accelerated development.

To move this hypothesis from historical observation to scientific data, several research avenues appear promising. A comparative bio-archaeological analysis of skeletal remains from first-millennium nomadic populations versus modern sedentary populations could yield crucial insights. Such a study would examine the closure of epiphyseal plates, or growth plates, to determine the actual chronological age at which biological skeletal maturity was reached. This would provide objective data on whether the "early adulthood" observed in historical records has a skeletal correlate. Complementing this approach, isotopic and proteomic analysis of tooth enamel and bone collagen could reconstruct the exact nutritional intake of these populations, allowing researchers to correlate specific nutrient densities; those found in dates and camel milk, for instance; with markers of growth acceleration. Furthermore, ancient DNA sequencing of these populations could search for alleles related to the GH/IGF-1 axis, which regulates growth and aging, to determine whether there were localized genetic adaptations for accelerated maturation that have since been diluted or lost in modern populations.

The stakes of such an investigation extend beyond mere historical curiosity. If proven valid, this hypothesis would challenge the notion of a universal human aging curve and suggest that human biology is far more plastic and responsive to environmental pressures than previously understood. The implications would suggest that what we consider "normal" human development is actually a product of our specific modern environment; one of nutritional abundance, low physical demand, and climate control. The populations of the first millennium, by contrast, may have represented a different phenotypic expression of the same genetic blueprint, one optimized for survival in extreme conditions. By investigating the "waves" of adaptation in the first millennium, we can better understand how the interplay of diet and environment can shift the trajectory of human development. It would be valuable to determine whether the "stronger, quicker" humans of the ancient desert were the result of a biological optimization that has been lost in the transition to modern, low-stress environments, and whether such optimization might be recapitulated under similar ecological pressures today. Further investigation into these questions may not only deepen our understanding of human history but also illuminate the remarkable plasticity of human biology itself.

Many aquarium plants require CO2 injection to be grown in an aquarium. However clearly these plants get an adequate amount of CO2 when they grow immersed in lakes. Are the CO2 levels higher in the lakes in which such plants live? If so, why? And why can it not be replicated in an aquarium?

One thought I had was that lakes have a higher surface area to volume ratio than an aquarium so CO2 dissolves more rapidly into them.

I also understand that decomposition produces CO2 in a lake, but surely this process occurs in aquariums too if the aquarium consists of a capped soil substrate layer and is well cycled. I also understand that CO2 is produced by the organisms in a lake - but I also can't see how the level of CO2 produced by organisms per litre would be less in an aquarium.

hello! i am a rec therapy major, and i am currently in anatomy biology, and we are learning about bones currently, and i have been STRUGGLING having to look at the trabeculae sections, i was wondering if anyone else knows some tips to help the icky feeling of looking at it, or any advice for fellow bio people with trypophobia? thank you sm!!

Vampire bats survive entirely on blood! 🦇

Rather than sucking it out, these sanguivores nick a resting animal with razor-sharp teeth and lap up what flows. Since blood is mostly water, their digestive systems rapidly absorb the fluid while their specialized kidneys filter out the excess, meaning the bats can pee mid-meal!
That clever trick keeps them light enough for the flight home.

Clearly not a scientist. I am an individual struggling with contamination fears. I am really trying to reframe my thinking about “germs” but I don’t have a science background. I am hoping the experts can give some insights to help me let go of false narratives and anchor into reality based ones to think about germs (micro-organisms?) in a healthy way since everyone lives normally amongst them yet I am avoiding them and fearing them.

I do not fear illness or sickness although my mind uses these germs as examples to justify this story that germs can be multiplying and living and spreading contamination everywhere. I fear bodily germs from other humans and wonder “who has touched that and what germs are on them now.” My faulty thinking is that they are all bad and that they can “cross-contaminate” on large amounts covering me and my home and belonging etc. I end up “tracking” this imagined contamination.

I realize this sounds like reassurance seeking however it’s part of my therapy to anchor in reality based healthy ways of thinking so I can anchor into that cognitively and use that as I make behavioural changes that align with my values and doing things in a normal healthy way.

Any insights are appreciated

Thank you kindly

During my phisiology and biomedical physics course in uni, I realized most people are unaware of how a selected set of mechanisms make the heart beating possible. So (after years) i made a video about it.

This clip is one cardiac cycle, slowed down.

Hey :D

I eat a lot of Mozarella, but don't want to pour the water down the drain (its low fat but still haha)

I was thinking maybe some organism can eat the protein leeched into the water, like fungi or plants or bacteria.

Sorry if this is the wrong sub to ask this