Here is an excerpt from a UCR research page: L. Walling, UCR Professor of Botany and Plant Sciences, employs the tools of molecular genetics to reduce citrus seed set and enhance citrus tolerance to pests and diseases. At University of Arizona, G. Wright breeds new scion and rootstock citrus varieties that will thrive in challenging desert environments. UCR Professor of Botany and Plant Sciences M. Roose investigates phylogenetic relationships among Citrus types and directs both scion and rootstock breeding projects which use detailed genetic mapping and recombinant DNA technology as well as traditional breeding techniques. Research performed in Citrus Variety Collection by the USDA National Clonal Germplasm Repository for Citrus and Dates includes molecular characterization of sexually-derived accessions, evaluation of rootstock physical properties, as well as fruit quality evaluations. The Citrus Variety Collection also serves as a source of materials for indexing and cleanup by the NCGRCD. C. Martin at Auburn University in Alabama relies upon the resources of the Citrus Variety Collection to revise the taxonomy of Citrus and its relatives based upon analysis of the chloroplast and nuclear genomes. T.L. Kahn and T. Siebert utilize the collection and three citrus Evaluation Blocks each year to evaluate new citrus varieties for trueness-to-type and commercial potential. Here is a link that might be useful: UCR Research

So, do you guys agree with that author that the research done was BOGUS that said lung cancer was not linked to smoking -- or do you NOT agree with him, and think that the research was right and that smoking is not linked to cancer? You do realize I posted a situation that was in reverse of what you would have thought, right? -and that in fact, almost everyone would agree with, right? So, you are in fact going off a on a guy you most probably agree with. Do you even know you are doing that? Maybe that pancake you're looking at is actually a waffle - better take a closer look - LOL I was using that author's thoughts about the smoking/cancer research as an example of how Bogus research can be. Those lung cancer/cigarette research studies are pretty well known 'bought' research studies that have been discussed by thousands of people -some more crazy than others. I've posted another link about possible skewed research for more or less the same reasons -- because the study was 'bought' or paid for by a cigarette company --- maybe you can go off on that author too especially if you agree with him ;-) Time to flip that pancake... Anyway, I have something to comment about from susan's link: "Women who remembered their parents smoking around them were 26 percent more likely to have had difficulty becoming pregnant and women exposed to any secondhand smoke were 39 percent more likely to have had a miscarriage, Peppone's team reported". Women who remembered their parents smoking around them... are also probably 15-20 years older than those that don't. (More 42 year olds had parents that smoked than 20 somethings). So, maybe it's age that is contributing to fertility and miscarriage issues, and not smoking. You would think that their sample would be using women of the same age. But, for some reason, I doubt it... I bet the women with 'issues' are also significantly older. Did they factor that in? Bottom line, research studies are generally paid for by someone and certain results are expected. Questions can be asked in ways and information can be left off to come to almost any conclusion a researcher wants to come to. It's not certain that the findings are necessarily wrong; but they are often not the smoking gun that so many suggestible readers and viewers want them to be. It's important to remember that these studies are not facts, they are findings... often tainted... Here is a link that might be useful: Conflict of Interest

More haha, you've provoked me. Just a little. They're not flippant, they're evasive. I'm not angry at all. Here's what you WON'T find on their website "We are a start-up bioinformatics company. Our goal is to accumulate enough genomic information from unique individuals so that that information can be sold as a product to researchers to provide data and insights useful for numerous types of biomedical research in this new and developing field. In return for your providing your information to us, we will provide an analysis back to you that as of today may only provide limited or perhaps even no useful information. Some of the interpretations we provide could turn out to be incorrect. As genomic understanding and investigations proceed, the information you receive from us could later become more useful. Supplying this information to you is all we owe you, you grant us a perpetual right to use your information and you understand you have no financial interest in any future income producing use we have for it." Take a look at their website, tell me what you find. I've been in town with them, it took time for the real story to get out. As with the Google example I started with at the top. I can tell you about my family member. I have frequent in-depth discussions concerning ongoing work and circumstances encountered internally and externally. Seems like it's been at least monthly (on this topic only) for years. I've visited all research facilities involved and met and spoken with colleagues. Where does all that get me? I know a fair amount for someone who knows nothing. And a lot more than someone with no exposure to the field. I have impressions and insights from perhaps a few handfuls of people. If you're a researcher, I'll immediately defer to you about research. But not about this company's conduct. If you'd had many long discussions with your Vietnam serving relative and others, the same could be said for you on that topic. Nothing more or less.

It's always good to read any study, whether it's old or new....I'm kind of doing my own "investigating"...My husband has been diagnosed with dementia and when I started really thinking, a lot of his buddies from high school have all gotten the same diagnoses...And in further checking, all these fellows played football...This was back in the late l940, early 50s, long before the helmets were made to "take the shock" of some of those hits...And then in further searching, I'm finding more and more fellows from that age group, who have played football are also in the same diagnoses class...When I asked the doctor if there could be a connection, he said, so many of the older pro football players are actually donating their brains to medical science to see if there might be a connection......