> "what is the thing that is wrong that is common among all those cases?" That's the easiest part, usually it is achieved since a long time. But biology is inc

> "what is the thing that is wrong that is common among all those cases?" That's the easiest part, usually it is achieved since a long time. But biology is incredibly complicated, much more than everything else. It's certainly not something linear with one causal event and a unique consequence. Beings have selected multiple pathways to achieve a function during million of years. Multiple systems are interacting and changing roles. For example there is not a unique immune system but a galaxy of components assuming different roles at different times. And technology plays an important role, a century ago we were unable to discern anything else than neurons in a brain, now we can "see" multiple glial cells. How to theorize about something we do not know as existing? > On the other hand, what chance does one then have to make a contribution to the field? The best is to work with scientists to solve some issue and them publish with them. I once talked with someone who did that with success. So the problem now is to meet scientists. The easiest way is to present a poster in a conference in order to meet a maximum of scientists at a low cost. If you are not accustomed to "posters" it's a one page summary of what is often a future paper. Master and PhD students are accustomed to present posters but usually there is no other entry barriers than the cost of attending the conference (~$800). > for example, the address of a gene is different depending on what transcription description I am looking at Probably because they use different reference genomes. The reference genomes are arbitrary, all humans have slightly different genomes. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000_Genomes_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000_Genomes_Project > I get a 404 page Many thanks, I will look at this ASAP.