Science Cheerleader

I’m an R. Surprised an R would dedicate her career to science literacy and citizen participation in science and policy? Me too!   I can understand why Newt Gingrich isn’t keen on spending public dollars to create, yet another, Congressional agency. But he’s wrong to think the Office of Technology Assessment, which he axed in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, was a waste of public dollars and resources. The scientists and policy wonks who worked there published hundreds of reports at the request of Congress to help them make sense of often complicated science and technology policy matters. You can find archives of the reports here. Many are still referenced today.

Last year, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it has sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I’m thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA.

I stumbled upon the OTA as a graduate student at UPenn (this is me on graduation day with comedian Yakov Smirnoff, seriously!) where my History and Sociology of Science professor handed me an assignment to “write about the rise and the fall of the OTA.” I read every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA. I even met with Newt Gingrich and Rep. Rush Holt and chatted with Rep. Vern Elhers and several of the architects of the OTA.
I was convinced that Congress was lost a bit without its only source of dedicated, nonpartisan tech assessments and believed the Office should be refunded (it was never really killed by Congress…it was just stripped of its $23million +/- budget).

However, in this era of public participation, open source, collaboration, and transparency, I sought to open a new, decentralized, 21st Century OTA, one that would provide a mechanism to both inform the public and seek their input before Bills are posted for public comment (who really comments on posted Bills besides lobbyists and special interest groups anyway?). It’s not an entirely new idea. Richard Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, more than hinted at this suggestion back in the 80s. Ironically, following a major public, political and economic disaster surrounding the 1990s roll out of genetically modified foods in Europe, the E.U. opened parliamentary OTAs with a twist: the science and technology assessment undertaken by the experts at their OTAs often include citizen participation as this has been found to help assess risk, create a better informed public, and better understand societal implications of emerging technologies. All of which are key ingredients in good policy making decisions, no?  Do you want scientists or special interest groups to represent you and your questions/concerns societal impacts of science and emerging technologies? Congress knows no more than you do about these and many other scientific issues and they openly admit this. While I think it’s imperative for scientists to drive a discussion and impart their expertise on such matters, it’s equally vital that WE are afforded the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on these matters BEFORE Bills are created.
This is where the organizers of the current effort to reopen the OTA (the science community) and I differ. For the most part, they either do not understand or they don’t see the value in public participation. I can understand why if recent Town Hall meetings are what they’re basing their opinions on…but that’s not the type of participation I’m advocating for. I’m talking about a deliberate, well-constructed, inclusive approach that’s been proven to be successful in Europe (and even in China for crying out loud) and here in the U.S. although those efforts were not directly tied to Congress.

For this reason, while I wish the scientists well in their effort to persuade Congress to refund the old OTA (for the most part, although Congress did recently appropriate funds to the Government Accountability Office specifically for “technology assessments” )  I am helping to organize a new network that values the significance of both expert and citizen analysis in technology assessment. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming weeks. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join me for the journey.
In the interim, here’s what Newt recently said about the OTA. Editorial note here: this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA w/o public participation-not only is he suggesting an “expert-only” approach, but a mere handful of experts at that. This former cheerleader can smell a clique a mile away

Thanks to Ant Atkinson and the entire Globetrotters organization.

Really doesn’t have much to do with the dino sculpture my son created, next to the THANG  on our family’s fireplace matel. But I bet Carl Zimmer has a guess. I recall the time I brought this heavy THANG into HIS office at Discover. Back when HE had a windowed office and I did not. Cut me a break, HE was 28, I was still young…and, oh yeah, there was that AAAS award he won for “God-like writers under the age of 30″.

I asked, genuflecting upon entering his office, as we all did: “Carl, what do you think this is? My father-in-law found it in a local, Long Beach Island, NJ, fishing shop.”

HE said: “Looks like a Mastodon tooth, maybe a molar. Probably a young one because it’s not worn down too far. You should take this to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philly, near where you live,  and I bet they can tell you more.”

So I did. I pulled the THANG out of my baby’s diaper bag, and asked the resident paleontologist: “What do you think this THANG is?”

He replied: “WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? DID YOU STEAL THAT?!”

I spent the next hour ’splainin’ the situation. Hey, Carl, back then, they never heard of YOU. The best thing I had going for me was the real baby in the real baby stroller…and two, twenty dollar bills.

But I digress.

I never did learn more about the origins of this tooth. Who knows more about this tooth? Closest to the tooth-truth earns a Tshirt. And now that I FINALLY have some street-cred with the National Academy of Sciences, I know I can find the answer there if you all fail.

This morning, the BBC reports the British Library will interview and record 200 scientists to form a permanent record of the way British science has been practiced.

“This is going to be enormously valuable to future historians because people no longer write letters or prepare archives,” said Sir Nicholas Goodison, chairman of National Life Stories, in an interview with the BBC. “E-mail is very difficult to archive and is mostly deleted by the people that write them.”

In fact, a study prompting this project found that at least nine British Nobel winners have died in the past 10 years “leaving little or no archive of their work”.

This archive will focus on four themes: inventions, climate change, biomedicine and cosmology, and an advisory board will help select the scientists to be interviewed. According to the BBC report, selected scientists and engineers will be interviewed about their “childhood, education, influences, relationships and frustrations to build up a picture of how science has been practiced”.

(Thanks to @mardixon for sharing this with us.)

I had so much fun doing Science Cheers with 1,500 kids at a Temple University basketball game yesterday. Those kids were awesome! Thanks for the invite, Temple and thanks for the assistance Hootie and Temple cheerleaders! Stepping on campus brought back a flood of wonderful memories. Goooo Owls! I’ll post the video shortly. I’ll be in San Francisco, L.A., Jacksonville, Washington, D.C., and NYC in the coming months. If you’d like me to get some Science Cheers going at a location near you, just email me at Darlene@sciencecheerleader.com
“LET’S go, SCI-ence,” clap, clap, clap-clap-clap! “4, 3, 2, 1, Science is for EVERYONE!”

It was announced today that Barbie’s newest career will be that of a Computer Engineer. Why?

“Girls who discover their futures through Barbie will learn that they – just like engineers – are free to explore infinite possibilities, and that their dreams can go as far as their imaginations take them,” said Nora Lin, President, Society of Women Engineers. “As a computer engineer, Barbie will show girls that women can design products that have an important and positive impact on people’s everyday lives, such as inventing a technology to conserve home energy or programming a newborn monitoring device.”

Barbie® designers worked with the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering to “ensure that accessories, clothing and packaging were realistic and representative of a real computer engineer”.

Read the full press release here. GOOOO Barbie!

Science Cheerleader readers,  I’d like to introduce you to Erika Ebbel, current PhD candidate in analytical chemistry at Boston University, former Miss Massachusetts, and founder of WhizKidz, an amazing non-profit that promotes science and technology awareness in local schools.

Erika was recently featured on NOVA ScienceNOW’s web series, The Secret Lives of Scientists, which makes her an official superstar celebrity scientist! Check it out — there is a particularly great video of Erika demonstrating “the science of the gown walk”.

I had a chance to ask Erika few questions about her passion for science, the challenges of dealing with stereotypes, and some of her future ambitions. Thanks to Erika for making the time for ScienceCheerleader!

Dr. John: Tell us your story. What inspired you to pursue a career in science?

Erika: When I was in the fifth grade, a school field trip was offered to my class to go to Washington, DC, for a week. My parents told me that I had the following choice: I could go to Washington with my class, or we could go on a family vacation to Mexico over the summer. They could not afford to pay for both. I selected the trip to Mexico. However, during the time when most of the class was in Washington, it was mandatory for those that stayed behind to attend school. In my English class, we read Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. My English teacher discussed genetic cloning and engineering with us. I became fascinated with the topic and on my own began reading such books as The Body at War, The Andromeda Strain, and The Fantastic Voyage. That summer, while on the family trip to Mexico, I visited a crocodile farm and was surprised to learn that when crocodiles are critically wounded, they turn over onto their backs, slip into coma, and eventually die a painless death.

When I returned from summer vacation, I was entering the sixth grade and doing a science fair project was mandatory. The idea came to me that “if crocodiles can do it why can’t cells?” For my sixth grade science fair project I hypothesized that cells commit suicide when infected by a virus so that they can die a painless death and prevent other cells from being infected by viruses. I decided that this was going to be the subject of my science fair project. I called numerous pharmaceutical companies and laboratories in the area, looking for a lab where I could test out my hypothesis. Many of the laboratories did not return my calls. One lab was concerned that I might be growing viruses in my basement and wanted to speak with my parents. All around, no one wanted an 11 year old mentee.

Only one individual was willing to speak with me about my idea. He was the director of a local Public Health Laboratory. He taught me how to culture cells, grow viruses, use microscopes, and perform various lab techniques. He also provided me with literature relating to cells and viruses. He spent time after work hours discussing the literature after I had gone over it. I designed an experiment to “see” if cells would commit suicide when they were infected with a virus. I was allowed to use the Herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1), which was the least dangerous virus at the laboratory. I learned about the scientific process and method. These skills have stayed with me ever since. Although, the results of that experiment were inconclusive (it was difficult to tell whether the cells were committing suicide or simply dying because they were infected by viruses), my interest in viruses continued.

I started reading scientific journals and was fascinated by the Hantavirus outbreak at Four Corners. I read books published by the CDC such as Hot Zone by Richard Preston.  While browsing around at a garage sale, I found a book on Russian folk medicine. I purchased the book to see what remedies were recommended by these ancient healers. I was amazed at the number of herbal remedies suggested for the treatment of the HSV-1. I wondered if I could test some kind of herb on HSV-1 (the virus I had worked with the previous year on cellular suicide).

I went to the University of California Medical Library in San Francisco and found through a computer search many articles related to herbal treatment; however, the one that interested me most was an article by a researcher in China, who had tested over 470 herbs on the HSV-1. According to the short outline that was in English (the rest was in Chinese), ten herbs inhibited the growth of HSV-1. The next day I went to a local Chinese herbal store and purchased four of the ten that were available at the store.

For my seventh grade science project, I asked the lab director at the Public Health Lab, if he would allow me to test the four herbs on the HSV-1. He agreed, provided that I designed my own procedure. I designed the procedure and determined that two of the four herbs were indeed able to inhibit viral growth without inducing cellular toxicity. After additional research at the UCSF Medical Library, I decided to focus my research efforts on one of the two herbs, because little to no work had been done on this particular herb.

I spent the next five years studying this herb, using various analytical methods to isolate and identify the anti-viral components in the herb. I was able to propose three novel nucleoside analog structures, which were proposed to have anti-viral activity. I worked at institutions such as San Francisco State University, Stanford University and MIT and at companies such as Genentech and Applied Biosystems. The experiences and knowledge I gained from this project were vast and have contributed to my continuing in the pursuit of a scientific career.

Dr. John: What are you currently studying for your dissertation?

Erika: I am currently attending Boston University Medical School in the Division of Graduate Medical Sciences as a Ph.D. candidate in Analytical Biochemistry. I use instruments called Mass Spectrometers and Electrochemical Arrays to study Huntington Disease (HD). HD is a genetically inherited debilitating disorder, which typically has an onset during mid-life (40-50 years of age). Symptoms include chorea and psychiatric dysfunction.

The goal of my research is to continue understanding the biochemistry behind HD. In order to do this, we obtain samples of plasma, urine, etc. and use the instruments mentioned above to help learn how diseased samples differ from non-disease controls. By learning which compounds differ between disease and non-disease samples, we are able to further understand the mechanism of the disease and what biochemical pathways may be affected in patients with HD.

We are also interested in learning whether any of the compounds present in HD samples interact with proteins or DNA in aberrant ways.

Dr. John: Why did you start the WhizKids Foundation?

Erika: I started the WhizKids Foundation, Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 2002 while pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). After reading several articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post describing declining student interest and performance in math and the sciences, I decided to start WhizKids, a program which would reignite student interest in these important subjects. Since my childhood experiences in science played a vital role in my determining to pursue a career as a scientist, I thought it was crucial to start this program.

WhizKids’ goal is to help schools and students organize and set up science fairs, science clubs, facilitate access to the scientific community, run science days, teach students how to be entrepreneurs, and offer ongoing lectures by WhizKids instructors in subjects such as biology, chemistry, physics, engineering and technology. I believe that participation in science fairs stimulates students to develop inquisitiveness, creativity and reasoning power. I also think that hands-on experiments allow students to see the applicability of science in the everyday world. WhizKids is involved with many student groups and communities. WhizKids programs have been started in Massachusetts, California and Florida.

Dr. John: Did you face any challenges with stereotypes after participating in the Miss America Pageant? How did you overcome those challenges?

Erika: Yes. It is interesting how strongly people react (both positively and negatively) to learning of my participation in the pageant. There were those who thought it was a very unique experience and wanted to learn about it. However, the majority raised their eyebrows and questioned why I would enter into the contest. Many thought it was a waste of time. I told them that they were wrong. The pageant gave me an opportunity to improve myself in ways that MIT did not. Academic learning was highly important to me, but I realized that I needed to learn how to speak in public, be poised, and become a better dresser. Participating in the Miss America pageant helped me to win scholarship money for MIT (approximately $20,000) and to begin working on my non-profit WhizKids which has since grown dramatically. It gave me a platform from which to speak about causes important to me, such as female participation in math and science careers and the importance of breaking with normal stereotypes. It has been 6 years since I won the pageant, and still I am balancing stereotypes.

I have learned to pay little attention to negative commentary. If people want to be closed minded, it is not worth my time trying to convince them that my choices were the right ones. I chose what was best for me; what helped me to improve myself. I have learned to ignore negative people who consistently want to characterize me as being one particular way. This has been the most effective way to overcome stereotyping. It is possible to be both academically inclined while pursuing many hobbies and interests.

Dr. John: Do you have any advice for young women considering a career in science or engineering?

Erika: We live in the “modern” era and yet there is definitely still stereotyping against women. My advice is to pursue science and engineering regardless of whatever social adversity you may face. Science and engineering are exciting fields to study. They take time to master, but consider the road to be fun and challenging. There may be moments where you take a hard class and wonder if you made the right decision. Each of us has gone through this. If you stick with it and be persistent, you will persevere. If you are interested in math and science, do not be daunted by those who may make fun of you. Do not pay attention to those who wish to tell you that scientists are geeky and cannot have other interests and talents. I was both Miss Massachusetts and a scientist, which proves it is possible.

Dr. John: It seems like you’ve accomplished so much already. What are your plans for the future?

Erika: I am interested in attending medical school after completing my PhD. I am also interested in continuing work on my non-profit WhizKids. Also, on a personal note, I continue to be active promoting math and science to students in elementary, middle and high school. It is my passion to share with them why these subjects are fun, cool and worth pursuing as careers.

Say wha? Check out Fairytale Fashion where technology is used “to turn make-believe into reality”.  It’s a project former Project Runway participant Diana Eng is working on these days. It’s an “interactive, web-enabled effort to create a collection of magical clothing in real life, replete with blooming flowers, transforming shapes and changing colors”.

In this installment of MotherboardTV, the “fashion geek” demonstrates how easily technology can be incorporated into fashion and she shares a secret about Victoria’s Secret’s bust-enhancing, “smart fabric”. Check it out.

Tomorrow, I’m heading to Pittsburgh, PA, to prep for another Discover Magazine roundtable discussion. This time, the topic is on the future of the machine: How will robots transform industry, health care, and warfare? And will they ever be our equals? This is part of a multi-year series of Discover panel discussions sponsored by the National Science Foundation and hosted by a number of awesome institutions including: The Franklin Institute, CalTech, The Exploratorium, and Capitol Hill. This year, we’ve got Carnegie Mellon University, the South-by-Southwest Festival/Austin (see Discover’s abstract here!) and a yet-to-be finalized host.

Here’s some more information on Thursday’s event at Carnegie Mellon University:

Date: January 28th, 7pm.

Panelists:
Rodney Brooks, MIT

Javier Movellan, UC San Diego

Robin Murphy, Texas A&M University

Red Whittaker, Carnegie Mellon University

Hosted by Discover Magazine’s editor in chief, Corey Powell.

I’ll post highlights here!

Hat tip to David Hartman for sending this recent article to us. David’s the former host of Good Morning America and widely sought-after speaker on all things aviation and beyond.

The article calls attention to a report in yesterday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which a study of first- and second-graders “suggests female elementary school teachers who lack confidence in their own math skills could be passing their anxiety along to the girls they teach.” Lead researcher,  Sian L. Beilock, an associate professor in psychology at the University of Chicago, says because young students “tend to model themselves after adults of the same sex, having a female teacher who is anxious about math may reinforce the stereotype that boys are better at math than girls.” (Maybe moms who fear math should teach preteens, because it’s been my experience that daughters model the exact opposite preferences of their moms. But I digress.)

It’s worth noting that the math gender gap is narrowing and in fact some say there’s no such thing as a “math gender gap”. So how do we explain the fact girls and boys score roughly the same on standardized math tests until they reach high school? Until recently, girls in high school weren’t taking the same rigorous math courses that the boys were. Now that they are, scores are evening out. Yup, it’s that simple. Check out this piece from Time.

And remember what Rita-the-Eagles-Cheerleader/Mathematician taught us:

“2-4-6-8!”

“The sum is 20.”
Cheers!