Bigyan Charcha

From a philosophical standpoint, universities are heavily political institutions as they have a certain set of core policies by which they run. Education itself is a political tool. In fact, universities are established to make students aware of how nature works, how society works, how economics and people work, etc. Politics is the governing engine that assimilates the output universities provide (also, there are some cross-talks between political institutions and universities). The yearning for the removal of politics from universities is an idea that needs to be better thought through.

Second, analyzing the hypothesis that politics is the reason for the present situation at Tribhuwan University, politics and university education are not mutually exclusive activities. In fact, universities provide grounds to churn out new ideas to challenge the status quo, reflect on existing policies, and find places where those can be made better.

Universities should provide their academicians with a place to think and freely teach ideas that the ruling state may or may not like. No professor should be beaten for teaching the benefits of capitalism or the philosophies of Karl Marx. This is what the premise of academic freedom is. A state dictating to academicians what to think and what not to think is not a democracy; it is one of the core tenets of dictatorship.

I wholeheartedly agree with the common narrative: political party-based hiring should not exist. However, TU does have provisions to prevent that. We have a TU service commission and provide rigorous examination and interview processes for hiring faculty. Whenever a popular figure comes to the stage and says, “politics le garda TU bigriyo.” I just want to ask what it means. 

I am not discounting the fact that some programs at TU are not the most desirable ones. There is a lot to do. Since change is a gradual process, we cannot expect to wake up in wonderland, especially when we go to a messy bed. 

Some of the things we need to work on seem to be figuring out our intellectual and political priorities. Most of our university courses and their aims are copied from foreign universities. This although looks like a nice thing to do because of globalization, however, as institutions with political motives, universities have unique priorities that may or may not align with ours. Once we have a tentative vision of what our priorities are, we can design university courses organically at which our students will excel. The analogy I am thinking of is that we cannot compare a Parker pen with a Chinese knockoff Parker look-alike pen.

One of the major characteristics of a renowned university is that it has a strong academic culture. I understand that perhaps strengthening academic culture is meant when these political figures say, “TU bata politics hataun.” To achieve this, I think we should focus on ensuring academic freedom, merit and necessity-based hiring of producers, and fostering professional academic etiquette (professional development courses/training) of hired academicians. We can work on some of the policies to ensure academic freedom and hiring mechanisms and require a series of professional development training for our academics. The blanket statement of politics ruining universities does not help, at least if this comes from a thoughtful person.

The microbial diversity of pond water refers to the variety of microorganisms present in this type of aquatic environment. Microbial diversity is important for the overall health and balance of an ecosystem, as different microorganisms play different roles in the ecosystem. For example, some microorganisms are responsible for breaking down organic matter and cycling nutrients, while others are involved in the process of photosynthesis.

The microbial diversity of pond water can be affected by a number of factors, including the pH and temperature of the water, the amount of sunlight and oxygen present, and the presence of other organisms. The pH of the water can affect the growth and activity of different microorganisms, as some species are better adapted to thrive in more acidic or basic conditions. The temperature of the water can also impact microbial diversity, as different microorganisms have different temperature requirements for growth and reproduction.

In addition to these abiotic factors, the presence of other organisms in the pond can also influence the microbial diversity. For example, the presence of predators can impact the populations of other microorganisms, while the presence of other species can affect the availability of resources and the overall ecosystem dynamics.

The exact microbial diversity of pond water will vary depending on these and other factors, but it is likely to include a range of bacteria, algae, and other microorganisms. Bacteria are a diverse group of microorganisms that are found in a wide variety of aquatic environments, including ponds. They play a crucial role in the ecosystem by breaking down organic matter and releasing nutrients into the water. This helps to support the growth of other organisms, including algae and plants.

Algae are another important group of microorganisms found in pond water. They are photosynthetic, meaning they use sunlight and carbon dioxide to produce their own food. This process releases oxygen into the water, which is essential for the survival of other aquatic organisms. In addition to their role in photosynthesis, algae also provide food for other organisms and help to support the overall food web of the pond ecosystem.

In addition to bacteria and algae, pond water is likely to contain a variety of other microorganisms, such as protozoans, fungi, and viruses. Protozoans are single-celled organisms that are often found in aquatic environments. They are important for the pond ecosystem because they feed on bacteria and other microorganisms, helping to control their populations and maintain a balance in the ecosystem.

Fungi are also commonly found in pond water. They play an important role in the decomposition of organic matter and the release of nutrients into the water. In addition, some fungi form symbiotic relationships with other organisms, such as plants, providing them with essential nutrients in exchange for food or shelter.

Viruses are another type of microorganism that can be found in pond water. While they are not considered to be alive in the same way as other microorganisms, they are able to reproduce and can have significant impacts on the microbial diversity of the pond. Viruses can infect and kill other microorganisms, leading to changes in their populations and the overall ecosystem dynamics.

MicroThe microbial diversity of pond water is microbial complex, and its complexity is influenced by a wide range of factors. The exact makeup of the microbial community will vary depending on the specific conditions of the pond, but it is likely to include a range of bacteria, algae, and other microorganisms that play important roles in the ecosystem.

Okay, let’s try to make this a bit more humorous. Here goes:

Sanger sequencing, also known as the dideoxy method, is a technique used in molecular biology to determine the nucleotide sequence of DNA. It’s named after Fred Sanger, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1980 for his work on the technique. That’s right, folks – this guy was a real “Sanger” of sequencing!

Sanger sequencing is based on the selective incorporation of chain-terminating dideoxynucleotides (ddNTPs) into growing DNA strands during replication. DNA polymerase, the enzyme that’s responsible for synthesizing new strands of DNA, normally incorporates nucleotides into a growing strand by adding them to the 3′ end. But when a ddNTP is present, it can be incorporated but it can’t be further extended, resulting in the termination of DNA synthesis. In other words, the ddNTP is like the “mom” of nucleotides – it says “No more DNA for you!” and shuts down the whole operation.

To perform Sanger sequencing, a small amount of DNA is first amplified using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to produce many copies of the target sequence. This amplified DNA is then fragmented into smaller pieces, kind of like breaking a really long novel into manageable chapters. Each fragment is then used as a template for a separate DNA synthesis reaction. In each reaction, a mixture of all four regular nucleotides (A, C, G, and T) is added, along with a small amount of a single ddNTP. This results in the synthesis of many DNA strands, each of which terminates at a specific point where the ddNTP was incorporated. It’s like a high school English class where each student has to write a different paragraph of a story, but they all have to stop at the same point.

These newly synthesized DNA strands are then separated by size using a technique called gel electrophoresis. This separates the strands based on their size, with smaller strands migrating faster through the gel. It’s kind of like a school field trip to a water park, where the kids who are smaller and lighter can slide down the water slides faster than the bigger kids. The DNA strands are then transferred to a nylon or nitrocellulose membrane, where they are exposed to a radioactively labeled or fluorescently labeled nucleotide. This labeled nucleotide will bind only to the complementary nucleotide on the DNA strands, allowing the sequence to be visualized using X-ray film or a specialized imaging system. It’s like a fancy dating app that only matches you with people who have complementary DNA sequences.

Sanger sequencing is still widely used today, although it has been largely replaced by more efficient next-generation sequencing techniques. It remains a powerful tool for sequencing smaller, specific regions of DNA and is still used in many research and clinical laboratories. So even though it’s not the newest kid on the block, Sanger sequencing still has plenty of “DNA” in the game!

Co-immunoprecipitation, or Co-IP for short, is a funky little technique that lets scientists pull down proteins like they’re playing a game of tug-of-war. It’s all thanks to a special set of proteins called antibodies, which are like tiny bouncers that only let certain proteins into the party.

Here’s how it works: first, scientists mix up a big batch of proteins and add some antibodies that specifically recognize one of the proteins they want to study. These antibodies act like sticky little tags, sticking to the protein and tagging it for future identification.

Next, the scientists add a second set of antibodies that can recognize both the first set of antibodies and the protein they’re attached to. This forms a complex of the protein, the first set of antibodies, and the second set of antibodies, which is like a big ball of protein and antibodies stuck together.

Finally, the scientists add a protein-binding substance called a precipitant, which causes the protein-antibody balls to stick together and form a solid precipitate. This precipitate is then collected and washed to remove any unwanted proteins, and the protein-antibody balls can be separated and studied.

And that, folks, is the principle of Co-IP in a nutshell! It’s a simple yet powerful technique that lets scientists pull down specific proteins from a mixture and study them in more detail. So the next time you see a scientist using Co-IP, give them a high-five and thank them for using this funky technique to advance our understanding of proteins and their interactions.

A biofilm is a slimy, gooey layer of microorganisms that forms on a surface, such as a rock, a leaf, or the inside of a pipe. These microorganisms, which can include bacteria, algae, and fungi, are stuck together in a community and are surrounded by a substance that they produce themselves. This gooey substance helps to protect the microorganisms and keep them happy.

Biofilms are a natural part of many environments and can be found in oceans, rivers, lakes, and even inside the human body. They play an important role in the ecosystem by helping to break down yucky stuff and recycle nutrients. In addition, biofilms can provide a home for other organisms, such as fish and plants.

Biofilms can form on a variety of surfaces, including rocks, leaves, and the inside of pipes. They love moisture and a yummy food source, so they are especially common in places where there is a lot of water and something tasty for them to munch on. For example, biofilms can form on the inside of pipes that carry drinking water, where they can cause problems by clogging up the pipes and reducing the flow of water.

Biofilms can also cause problems in other ways. For example, some microorganisms that live in biofilms can produce toxins that can be harmful to humans or other organisms. In addition, biofilms can provide a safe haven for mean, nasty bacteria, allowing them to grow and multiply without being killed by antibiotics or other treatments.

To prevent the formation of biofilms, it is important to keep surfaces clean and dry. This can help to reduce the amount of moisture and food available for the microorganisms, making it less likely for biofilms to form. In addition, regular cleaning and maintenance of pipes and other surfaces can help to remove any existing biofilms.

In some cases, it may be necessary to use chemicals or other treatments to remove or control biofilms. For example, chemicals such as chlorine or hydrogen peroxide can be used to kill the microorganisms in a biofilm. However, these treatments can also be harmful to other organisms and should be used with caution.

While biofilms can be a nuisance in some situations, they can also provide benefits, such as helping to break down yucky stuff and recycle nutrients. By understanding more about biofilms and how to control them, we can help to maintain the health and balance of our environment. And that’s no joke!

Mendelian inheritance is a type of inheritance that follows the principles of inheritance described by Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. This type of inheritance occurs when a trait is determined by a single gene, and the expression of that trait is not influenced by other genes or environmental factors.

Mendel identified two key principles of inheritance that are now known as the “law of segregation” and the “law of independent assortment”. The law of segregation states that every individual has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. During the production of gametes (sperm and eggs), these gene copies are separated and randomly distributed into different gametes. As a result, an offspring has a 50% chance of inheriting any given gene from a parent.

The law of independent assortment states that the inheritance of one trait does not affect the inheritance of other traits. In other words, the genes for different traits are inherited independently of one another.

Together, these principles help to explain how traits are passed down from parents to offspring in a predictable and consistent manner. For example, if a trait is determined by a dominant gene, then an individual who inherits a copy of that gene from one parent will express the trait, regardless of whether they also inherit a copy of the gene from the other parent.

Mendelian inheritance is relatively straightforward when a trait is determined by a single gene. However, many traits are determined by multiple genes, and the expression of these traits can be influenced by environmental factors. These complex traits are not inherited in a simple Mendelian pattern, and they are the subject of much study in the field of genetics.

Mendelian inheritance provides a framework for understanding how traits are passed down from parents to offspring. It is also an important tool for geneticists who are studying the genetics of plants, animals, and humans, as well as for medical professionals who are using genetic testing to diagnose and treat inherited diseases.

The use of HeLa cells, which are derived from the cervical cancer cells of Henrietta Lacks, has long been a topic of ethical debate. On the one hand, these cells have been instrumental in countless medical breakthroughs and have saved countless lives. On the other hand, the manner in which the cells were obtained raises significant ethical concerns.

The story of Henrietta Lacks is a complex one. She was a poor, African American woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1951. Without her knowledge or consent, cells from her cancer were taken and used to create the first immortal human cell line, known as HeLa. This cell line has been widely used in medical research for decades, and has been instrumental in the development of numerous life-saving treatments and medical technologies.

However, the fact that Henrietta Lacks was not asked for her consent and was not informed that her cells would be used in this way raises serious ethical concerns. It is widely considered to be a violation of her autonomy and dignity as a human being. In addition, the fact that Henrietta Lacks and her family were not compensated for the use of her cells, despite the significant profits that have been generated from their use, has also been criticized as unethical.

Despite these ethical concerns, the use of HeLa cells continues to be justified by many on the grounds that the potential benefits of their use far outweigh any ethical considerations. The fact is that these cells have been instrumental in countless medical breakthroughs and have saved countless lives. They have been used to develop vaccines, cancer treatments, and other medical technologies that have greatly improved the health and well-being of people around the world.

However, it is important to note that the ethical concerns surrounding the use of HeLa cells cannot be ignored. As a society, we must always strive to respect the autonomy and dignity of individuals, and to ensure that their rights are not violated in the pursuit of scientific advancement. This means that researchers must obtain informed consent from individuals before using their cells, and that individuals and their families must be fairly compensated for the use of their cells. Only by following these principles can we ensure that the use of HeLa cells is ethical.

HEK293 cells are human embryonic kidney cells that are commonly used in biomedical research. They were derived from a healthy human embryonic kidney in 1973 and have been extensively studied and characterized since then.

HEK293 cells are useful in research because they are easy to grow and manipulate in the laboratory. They can be grown in culture and are highly proliferative, meaning that they can divide and multiply quickly. They are also easily transfected, meaning that they can be genetically modified with exogenous DNA.

HEK293 cells have a number of characteristics that make them useful in research. They are able to express a wide range of proteins, including proteins that are involved in signaling pathways, ion channels, and receptor-mediated responses. They are also able to form structures similar to those found in human tissues, such as cell-cell junctions and tight junctions.

HEK293 cells are commonly used in research on a variety of topics, including drug discovery, gene expression, and protein-protein interactions. They are also used as a model system for studying the biology of human cells and for developing cell-based therapies.

Additionally, HEK293 cells are used in the production of biotherapeutics, such as monoclonal antibodies and recombinant proteins. They are able to produce large amounts of these molecules, which can be purified and used for research or therapeutic purposes.

The Hershey-Chase experiment is a classic experiment in molecular biology that was conducted by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase in 1952. It was designed to determine the role of DNA and protein in the replication of the bacteriophage T2.

The Hershey-Chase experiment involved infecting bacterial cells with bacteriophage T2, which is a virus that infects bacteria. The bacteriophage T2 consists of a protein coat that surrounds its genetic material, which is either DNA or RNA.

The infected bacterial cells were then incubated for a period of time to allow the bacteriophage T2 to replicate. The replication process involves the bacteriophage T2 injecting its genetic material into the bacterial cell, where it uses the cell’s machinery to replicate.

After the incubation period, the bacterial cells were separated into two fractions: the cell debris and the infected cell lysate. The cell debris contained the protein coat of the bacteriophage T2, while the infected cell lysate contained the genetic material of the bacteriophage T2.

The cell debris and infected cell lysate were then labeled with different isotopes of sulfur and phosphorus. The cell debris was labeled with sulfur-35, while the infected cell lysate was labeled with phosphorus-32. This allowed the researchers to track the movement of the protein coat and the genetic material during the replication process.

The results of the Hershey-Chase experiment showed that the protein coat of the bacteriophage T2 remained in the cell debris, while the genetic material of the bacteriophage T2 was incorporated into the infected bacterial cell. This demonstrated that DNA, not protein, is the genetic material of the bacteriophage T2.

The Hershey-Chase experiment was a significant milestone in the field of molecular biology, as it provided strong evidence for the role of DNA in the replication of viruses. It was also a key step in the development of the modern understanding of the structure and function of DNA.