Michael Douglas afirma que sexo oral causou câncer

O ator Michael Douglas, estrela de filmes como "Instinto Selvagem" (1992) e "Atração Fatal" (1987), afirmou em entrevista ao jornal britânico "Guardian" que seu câncer na garganta foi aparentemente causado por ele ter feito sexo oral em mulheres.
Atualmente divulgando o filme "Behind the Candelabra", de Steven Soderbergh, no qual interpreta o pianista gay Lee Liberace (1919-1987), o ator, marido de Catherine Zeta-Jones, falou de maneira franca ao diário britânico sobre sua doença, diagnosticada em 2010.
Questionado sobre se arrepender de passar anos fumando e bebendo (causa comum deste tipo de câncer), Douglas, 68, rebateu.
Luca Bruno - 25.mai.2013/Associated Press

O ator americano Michael Douglas em Mônaco, acompanhando a Fórmula 1
"Não. Sem querer entrar muito nos detalhes, esse câncer em particular é causado pelo HPV [papilomavírus humano, doença sexualmente transmissível], que vem do sexo oral", afirmou.
"Eu de fato me questionei se o estresse causado pela prisão do meu filho [condenado a 5 anos de prisão em 2010] não ajudou a causá-lo [o câncer]. Mas é, é uma doença sexualmente transmissível que causa câncer. E se você a possui, o sexo oral também é a melhor cura para isso."
Depois do diagnóstico, Douglas passou por rádio e quimioterapia e perdeu 20 quilos graças a uma dieta líquida.
Ele disse ao "Guardian" que está totalmente curado e que, segundo seus médicos, em 95% das vezes esse tipo de câncer não retorna.
Malesh Kumar, consultor médico do jornal britânico, se disse cético quanto ao sexo oral ser a única causa do câncer de garganta do ator e negou que, uma vez sofrendo da doença, o melhor tratamento seja mais sexo oral.
"Medicamente, isso não faz sentido."
Kumar confirmou, porém, que o HPV é responsável pelo aumento drástico na incidência do câncer de garganta.

Espanhol é a língua mais falada depois do mandarin

The rise of Spanish: Hats off | The Economist

Dia Contra o Cigarro WHO

Universidades voltadas para soluções

Will Think Tanks Become The Universities Of The 21st Century? - Forbes

QI alto está relacionado a capacidade de manter a atenção

Intelligence linked to ability to ignore distractions

All in the mind: blocking out background distractions is a feature of people with higher IQs, the Rochester test showed

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Is there a genius in all of us?
• Motivation 'key to high IQ score'
• Lower IQ 'a heart disease risk'

People with higher IQs are slow to detect large background movements because their brains filter out non-essential information, say US researchers.

Instead, they are good at detecting small moving objects.

The findings come in a study of 53 people given a simple, visual test inCurrent Biology.

The results could help scientists understand what makes a brain more efficient and more intelligent.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

We expected that all participants would be worse at detecting the movement of large images, but high IQ individuals were much, much worse...”

Michael MelnickUniversity of Rochester

In the study, individuals watched short video clips of black and white bars moving across a computer screen. Some clips were small and filled only the centre of the screen, while others filled the whole screen.

The participants' sole task was to identify in which direction the bars were drifting - to the right or to the left.

Participants also took a standardised intelligence test.

The results showed that people with higher IQ scores were faster at noticing the movement of the bars when observing the smallest image - but they were slower at detecting movement in the larger images.

Michael Melnick of the University of Rochester, who was part of the research team said the results were very clear.

"From previous research, we expected that all participants would be worse at detecting the movement of large images, but high IQ individuals were much, much worse.

The authors explain that in most scenarios, background movement is less important than small moving objects in the foreground, for example driving a car, walking down a hall or moving your eyes across the room.

People with higher IQs appear to be able to concentrate better

As a person's IQ increases, so too does his or her ability to filter out distracting background motion and concentrate on the foreground.

In an initial study on 12 people, there was a 64% correlation between motion suppression and IQ scores. In this larger study on 53 people, a 71% correlation was found.

In contrast, previous research on the link between intelligence and reaction times, colour discrimination and sensitivity to pitch found only a 20-40% correlation.

But the ability to ignore background movements is not the only indicator of intelligence.

"Because intelligence is such a broad construct, you can't really track it back to one part of the brain," says Duje Tadin, who also worked on the study.

"But since this task is so simple and so closely linked to IQ, it may give us clues about what makes a brain more efficient, and, consequently, more intelligent.

"We know from prior research which parts of the brain are involved in visual suppression of background motion.

"This new link to intelligence provides a good target for looking at what is different about the neural processing, what's different about the neurochemistry, what's different about the neurotransmitters of people with different IQs."

UFMG se destaca entre as Universidades

UFMG se torna centro de excelência com investimentos em pesquisa e inovação

PAULO PEIXOTO
DE BELO HORIZONTE

Ancorada em cursos de graduação e pós-graduação bem avaliados, a UFMG (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais) se tornou um centro de excelência universitária com a realização de investimentos em pesquisa, tecnologia e inovação.
Para alcançar os melhores postos de classificação em indicadores de qualidade, como o internacional QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) e o Enade (avaliação do ensino superior), a universidade investe fortemente também em parcerias, públicas e privadas.
Esse trabalho resulta, por exemplo, no número de patentes depositadas no INPI (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial), ficando atrás apenas da USP. Até 2012, eram 530 --sendo 75 no ano passado e outras 75 em 2011.
A universidade tem quase cem contratos de transferência de tecnologia assinados com empresas nacionais e internacionais.
"A Google está em BH porque foi transferido know-how da UFMG para ela", disse o reitor Clélio Campolina.
"Fazemos grande esforço de pesquisa, captando apoios de instituições de fomento: CNPq, Capes, Fapemig, Finep. Fazemos muitos contratos com empresas --como Petrobras, Cemig e Embraer. São pesquisas que estão sendo desenvolvidas dentro da UFMG", completou.
Novos passos estão sendo dados. O reitor cita a construção de um centro de transferência de tecnologia, que deverá estar concluído em 15 meses, além da criação de uma fundação de apoio e desenvolvimento à pesquisa.
A "Fundep S/A" dará mais autonomia gerencial e captará recursos com instituições de fomento. "BNDES, Finep, BDMG e Sebrae vão colocar recursos para a UFMG investir em empreendimentos de alta tecnologia", disse.
O investimento em infraestrutura é grande, segundo o reitor. A UFMG possui, por exemplo, um centro de microscopia eletrônico que virou referência nacional.
Para Campolina, todo esse investimento em pesquisa e tecnologia não teria sentido se não houvesse investimento nos alunos e professores.
"Depois da USP, a UFMG foi a universidade que mais mandou alunos de graduação para o exterior pelo Ciência sem Fronteira neste semestre: quase mil", disse.
Dos quase 3.000 professores, 85% têm doutorado. Na última avaliação da Capes, 25 de 58 programas de pós-graduação foram classificados no padrão de "excelência internacional" --atualmente são 62.

Artigo do The Guardian - revela que Inglaterra está diminuindo investimento em C&T e isso vai ter impacto em seu desenvolvimento Econômico. Sra Presidenta Dilma leia esse artigo

UK science is falling behind in the global race

With the government's spending review looming, the Royal Society of Chemistry is calling for an Olympic effort to persuade politicians to make a long-term commitment to creating growth and jobs through science

• Email

The UK has a reputation for outstanding performance in science. But we're in danger of sliding down the medals table. Photograph: Dan Chung/Guardian

When it comes to Olympic sport, the UK is a small nation making a big impact. Last year's games saw us finish third in the medals table, behind only the United States and China and ahead of Russia, despite our comparatively small population.

The UK has a record of punching above its weight in science too. Combining public and private funding, the UK's spending on R&D is only 3% of the global total. Yet we are home to 4% of the world's researchers and we contribute to 6% of published papers.

But we are in danger of sliding down the scientific medals table. For many years now, UK science funding has been falling compared with other nations, and it is now well below key international competitors including the United States, China and Germany.

Why should this matter if you aren't a scientist?

Science is an important driver of economic growth. According to a report published by Nesta, 63% of UK growth between 2000 and 2008 was due to innovation. Government figures show that the chemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors alone made up 1.9% of gross value added to the UK economy in 2011 (reaching £27bn), and the newly flourishing biotech industry is predicted to contribute £4-12bn by 2025.

This growth engine is at risk if the decline in science spending isn't reversed. Already, the UK spends only 1.76% of GDP on R&D, versus a G8 average of 2.1%, with fast-growing countries investing even more – such as 3.74% in South Korea.

Government funding is essential to achieving a turnaround. The public purse will always be limited, and private sector investment must be maximised. But OECD data shows that across the world business R&D investment is strongly linked to input from government. (Change the y-axis on this graph from the OECD to "BERD" to see a correlation between public R&D expenditure and business R&D expenditure, based on these data.)

UK government investment is notably lagging behind our competitors, at below 0.6% of GDP compared with a G8 average of 0.8% and an EU average of 0.7% (this is all very nicely shown over at scienceogram in case you're interested).

There is little hope of a real upswing in government funding soon. The government's 2010 spending review saw a cash freeze for science, but in real terms this meant a cut of more than 10%. The government will announce the science budget for 2015/2016 on 26 June. But with departments being asked to find budget reductions of 10% on top of current plans, it seems unlikely that science will do much better this time around.

So how can we prevent the UK's scientific lead slipping away?

First, we need the government to make a long-term commitment to supporting science. We need to give businesses looking to invest in the UK and researchers planning to work here a sense of security in ourresearch ecosystem. Science is Vital is calling for a goal to meet the G8 average of 0.8% of GDP spent on government science funding. This is a fantastic goal to aim for, but even with a change of course it is at least 10 years away.

A realistic goal to reach by the end of the next parliament, in 2020, might be to raise UK science spending to 0.7% of GDP, the current EU average. This is not an insignificant rise – it would take political conviction – but it is not impossible. It would require a 3% year-on-year increase in spending relative to GDP.

Second, in the short term we need to limit the damage to the UK's research base so that it is poised to grow again when resources return. The Royal Society of Chemistry is urging the government to continue to fund science at 2010 levels in this spending review, including returning the capital budget to this level.

Making science work for the economy isn't all about funding. We need to consolidate the UK's variety of innovation support mechanisms to better convert research into growth. And we need to ensure that people have the skills to take up the jobs created by science and innovation, by supporting STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education and experience at all levels.

But none of this can happen if we don't unite to demand a well-funded research base to build on. It's true that times are tough, but we all know that cutting funding for research is a false economy. The Royal Society of Chemistry's members are working with their MPs to raise the profile of this issue, and the whole scientific community can get involved: sign Science is Vital's petition, write or talk to your MP; and play your part in making the UK a world champion in science and innovation.