Science Cheerleader

Another gem from our own Occam’s Razor. Take it away, Occam!

I am, like the rest of the country, caught up in soccer fever, where the fever in my case manifests itself in a soothing warmth that puts me directly to sleep.  No, this will not be another commentary about how inferior a sport soccer is – for one thing, that puts me on the wrong side of the intelligentsia (not that that’s always a bad thing), and for another, three billion people probably can’t be wrong.  And certainly any sport that inspires fans to stomp and thrash each other (investigated by scientists here) must be thrilling, though has anyone ever suffered a heart attack over a missed header?

I was in the gym a couple of weeks ago and just happened to glance up from my reading to see a game on the TV winding down and locked in a scintillating 0-0 tie.  This score seemed to cause a lot of excitement among soccer fans in the room, one of whom even remarked, enthralled, that the game featured two of the World Cups best scorers. This would be like getting excited about Peyton Manning and Tom Brady play to a scoreless game and I just don’t get it. After all, Americans are generally fans of the double-o football, where our highlight packages are sliced together into videos that contain cuts approximately every .8 seconds. (Seriously…I counted and in this 180-second highlight package there were over 200 seperate shots.)  Can a Twitter society be expected to sit there and watch 0-0 ties without being bored??

Science is split on the issue of boredom, depending on who you talk to. Being bored is certainly not bad for you, as it’s during these moments, scientists say, that we have introspection and bursts of creativity.  As you sit there bored in some dark bar watching a soccer game, drinking Belgian beer with your sophisticated soccer friends – babbling endlessly about ball handling and offensive strategies (score one goal and win!) – you might actually be creating new stuff in your head.   Einstein reportedly came with E=mc2 while staring off into space during a Switzerland-Germany match.  Over the long term, however, as Occam noted in a previous post, a recent study showed that you can literally be bored to death. (more…)

I met Natalie earlier this year in Berkeley, CA, where we meeting with other members of the Coalition for the Public Understanding of Science team. She’s beautiful, smart, passionate about science literacy, and a terrific role model for young women. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear from Natalie:
SciCheer: What turned you on to science?
Natalie: I always liked science classes in middle and high school, but truthfully, I always liked most of my subjects. Then in high school I got a chance to work for a summer in a research lab, and that was the experience that transformed me from someone who kind of liked science into someone who loved it. *Doing* real science made the difference and convinced me that I wanted to be a researcher. I still think that if people only knew how much fun it is to participate in science, to mull over data or to try out an experiment they’ve dreamed up, then when I tell people that I’m a biological engineer, I’d hear a lot fewer saying, “oh I hated science when I was in school.”
SciCheer: What degree(s) did you pursue for your current position?

Natalie: I studied dance and chemistry in college and then got a PhD in cell biology. And did a few years of post-doctoral training before starting in a faculty position. (more…)

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.

National Geographic Kids has a short and sweet slide show description of fireworks. Turns out my personal favorite, The Weeping Willow,  (pictured left) is made by adding an excess of charcoal to the firework. Photo by Ramon Gutierrez.

This week, The Scientist reports on a study suggesting the long-cherished mistletoe may be messing with the white spruce trees’ hormones. In a not-yet-published report, Barry Logan, an associate professor of biology at Bowdoin College, and his team discovered that, unlike traditional host-parasite relations where, in an attempt to stave off damage, the host tree directs water and nutrients to healthy limbs and branches at the expense of infected ones, the dwarf mistletoe triggers the white spruce to manufacture hormones that direct cherished resources towards infected branches. The parasitic effects of the dwarf mistletoe include tangled witches’ brooms , small needles and stunted tree growth.
Dwarf mistletoe isn’t always lethal, according to The Scientist.

“Forty-two species (including the eastern variety) exist, and they impart varying degrees of harm on their favorite host trees. In Washington and Oregon, western hemlocks show evidence of having weathered infections of hemlock dwarf mistletoe for 80 years or more, Logan says. White spruce, on the other hand, succumb to eastern dwarf mistletoe in 15 or 20 years.”

“There’s an interplay between [host and parasite] which I didn’t appreciate when I first tackled this project,” Logan adds. “It makes it more interesting, and more complicated.”

Happy Hanukkah. My three-year-old attends a Jewish preschool where he made this handprint-menorah. He handed it to me and said “I made these Tiger Claws for you!”  Those little claws were meant to be candles. Here are a few interesting science facts about candles (how and why they burn).

That’s right! These four Eagles cheerleaders are big fans of science (one’s even a math geek). This past week, I interviewed these brainy cheerleaders and we talked about what sparked their love of science…and much more.  Stay tuned for that video! (Thanks to the Eagles for making this possible.)

Now we know why our own Dr. John seems obsessed with Super Mario Kart. (Check out his world records.)

Found this (2008) first-of-its-kind study where researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine demonstrate how the part of the brain that generates rewarding feelings is more activated in men than women during video-game play.

After analyzing the imaging data for the entire group, the researchers found that the participants showed activation in the brain’s mesocorticolimbic center, the region typically associated with reward and addiction. Male brains, however, showed much greater activation, and the amount of activation was correlated with how much territory they gained. (This wasn’t the case with women.) Three structures within the reward circuit—the nucleus accumbens, amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex—were also shown to influence each other much more in men than in women. And the better connected this circuit was, the better males performed in the game.

Boys will be boys   (I should admit I was the QUEEN of Ms. PacMan and just felt myself getting sucked back into the underground world while playing Ms Pacman online, for free.)

Pix from the Phils’ previous home game. (I know, I know, I’m a freaky geek.)
Thanks for your help Phillies Phans, especially Tania! “GOOO Phillies! and GOOO Science!”

Recently, I helped Discover Magazine put together a panel discussion sponsored by the Templeton Foundation at Yale. The topic: Does evolution explain human nature? This was part of the Templeton Foundation’s Big Questions Series.

Big shout out to Yale’s public affairs and broadcast media teams! Thanks for inviting me to sign the celebrity wall in the green room (sorry it’s much larger than Ted Kennedy, Jr’s autograph but, ya know).

Here are highlights from the discussion featuring Ken Miller, David Sloan-Wilson and Laurie Santos chatting with Discover’s Editor, Corey Powell. Check out this civil, thought-provoking discussion. So, does evolution explain human nature?