[This is an update of an article originally posted in 2010.]
Newt Gingrich maintains his support for increases in federal spending on scientific research. And I mean massive funding increases at two federal agencies in particular, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (these agencies primarily oversee and support scientific research across the U.S.). Yet, in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, he axed one, relatively small Congressional agency you’ve probably never heard of: the Office of Technology Assessment. 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.

Newt felt the OTA had become too politicized and insignificant. Perhaps it had. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that one tiny little line in the legislative language crafted to form the OTA was ignored as the years passed. The OTA was created to provide a shared working space for scientists, policymakers and citizens in an effort to assess, to the best of our abilities, the potential opportunities and challenges inherent in an endless stream of emerging technologies…then to use that combined knowledge to better inform policies. Basically, to help us, as a nation, better anticipate some of the economic and societal implications of emerging technologies. But the “citizen input” never really happened. Turns out it was difficult to make this happen in the 1970s when the OTA was launched. This was before the Internet, mind you, and with a tiny budget, the OTA couldn’t regularly afford to fly people together for meetings of the minds. If public input had become a staple of the OTA, as was designed, is it possible the agency would not have been viewed as a politicized one? Perhaps the public would have rallied to save the agency when Newt issued his call to arms.

Not too long ago, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I was thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA. Please bear with me for just a moment.

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.”  (Thank you Professor Susan Lindee!)

I read virtually every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA.

I even met with Newt Gingrich, Sen. Kennedy, 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.

To advance this idea and help produce a “proof of concept,” Science Cheerleader teamed up with the Boston Museum of Science, Arizona Statue University, the Loka Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars to form ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. We’re in the midst of our first, official activity tied to the World Wide Views on Biodiversity. If you’d like to learn more or get involved, please visit the website to sign up. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join in this evolving journey!

So where does Newt stand on the matter of the OTA today? Here’s a fairly recent video in which he suggests a few scientists on this side (R) and a few scientists on that side (D) would suffice as advisors. Dare I suggest this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA without 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

What do you think? Is there a better path forward, a shinier future for science policy making? Now, more than ever, let’s hope the answer is “yes.”

Pleased to introduce you to our latest Science Cheerleader, Jen, a doctor in Forensic Pathology who used to cheer for two NBA teams (Cleveland Cavaliers and Detroit Pistons) and one AFL team (Columbus Destroyers).

SciCheer: Jen, what turned you on to science and when?
Jen: I come from a science-related family. My father is a PhD biochemical researcher and my mother is a medical technologist. My older brother was a chemistry major in college and now works doing quality analysis in the beer industry. My parents would sometimes take me to work when I was little and I would entertain myself by playing with things that were laying around the lab. I always thought I would be a veterinarian ‘when I grew up’ but then realized I was allergic to most animals; so then I decided medical school was the next best thing. I wanted to work in a field that would constantly be challenging, stimulating and engaging, and one that would have endless possibilities. Thankfully, my allergy to animal dander has responded to medication allowing me to have pets!

SciCheer: What is your degree in and from where?
Jen: I received by BA in Chemistry and Zoology from Miami University of Ohio in 1998 – I was only in college for 3 years because I had tested out of a lot of college credits from advanced placement courses in high school. I entered medical school at the Medical College of Ohio (now the University of Toledo School of Medicine) in 2000 and graduated with my MD in 2004. From there, I entered a pathology residency and as much as I tried to stay away from it, I realized my interest was specifically in the area of autopsies and Forensic Pathology.

SciCheer: Favorite and/or least favorite courses you took to prepare for your degree?
Jen: I was a complete geek that loved Organic Chemistry – I think for me it’s the ability to work things out spatially and visually. Least favorite course ironically was probably Biochemistry because I have a hard time wrapping my head around concepts that can’t be seen or touched.

SciCheer: When did you cheer for Cleveland and Detroit?
Jen: I was a member of the Cleveland Cavaliers dance team in 1998 and 2003 and danced with the Detroit Pistons Automotion from 2001-2003; I joined the AFL Columbus Destroyers Bombshells dance team for 2004-05.

SciCheer: Which came first? Your interest in science or cheerleading?
Jen: My interest in science was practically inborn. I didn’t start dance training until I was a little older (the ripe old age of 8), and continued dancing through high school and college. The reason I went out for a professional team was because I graduated college early and had time off before I entered medical school so I thought, “why not audition?” The rest is history!

SciCheer: Can you describe a typical day at work?
Jen: I perform autopsies on people who may have met an unnatural death (ie accident, homicide, suicide). I go into the office around 8 am, perform 1-2 (and maybe more depending on the day) autopsies in the morning, and catch up on paperwork, phone calls, etc in the afternoon. My job mainly involves performing autopsies but may also involve speaking with families, detectives, prosecutors, going through medical records, and attending crime scenes.

SciCheer: did you find that stereotypes about cheerleaders helped or hindered your studies or professional experiences?
Jen: I’ve definitely found it hard to navigate the cheerleader stereotype in my professional and academic lives. I’ve had teachers and bosses outright tell me I should stop my extracurricular activities. I think a lot of my coworkers have found it interesting that I was a professional cheerleader/dancer, yet it’s hard for them to reconcile. I’m not sure if they’re amused, interested or appalled and it’s likely a combination of all those factors. We don’t talk about it at work, I try to keep it low profile because I don’t want to give people the wrong impression.

SciCheer: Best cheerleading experience?
Jen: For a lot of people it’s the first game, but for me I think it was towards the end of the season when I was really comfortable with our gametime rules, comfortable with the routines and choreography and could really just enjoy my time out there on the court.

SciCheer:Best science-related experience?
Jen: Being qualified as an expert witness in court; I’ll always have that badge of honor

Here’s a treat! A guest post by Dr. Valerie Weiss, a scientist-turned-filmmaker, who will be in Philadelphia on 10/22 to debut her film “Losing Control” (a romantic comedy about a female scientist who wants proof that her boyfriend is “the one.”) I’m planning to attend if you’d like to join me!

It can be tricky when you love two things equally that most people think are opposites. The Science Cheerleaders may know this better than anyone! For me, science and film are those two things. Now that I’ve combined them in LOSING CONTROL, my quirky romantic comedy about a female scientist who wants proof that her boyfriend is “the one”, it is easier to see how they fit together. I fell in love with acting when I was a nine years old, and then fell in love with Biology in tenth grade, and like loving two different boys, the bad-boy (film) and the nice-guy (science), these two loves didn’t seem compatible.

Actually, to me, they were always compatible, but it was nearly impossible to explain it to people, and even harder to explain that I thought I could do them both. For most people, art and science are at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of how we think. For me, they’ve always been two different approaches to accessing the same thing– how life works. The questions each one asks are what drew me to them in the first place, and the reason I’ve never grown tired of either is the tremendous amount of creativity it takes to do each of them.

The creativity in being an artist is commonly acknowledged, but the creativity in science is often overlooked. In fact, science is just as creative as art. Just believing that there is some order to our extremely varied and wondrous world takes a creative mind. Recognizing central questions and designing experiments to answer them is a creative process. Interpreting data and designing a model for how something works is absolutely creative. For me, science and art have always gone hand-in-hand, and I don’t think I’d be the filmmaker I am today with my specific point-of-view, if I hadn’t been a scientist first. Science and art enrich my experience of each other and the world around me and I am grateful to have both perspectives when telling my stories– being a scientist and a filmmaker has broadened my world rather than narrowing it.

Synopsis of LOSING CONTROL from Philadelphia Film Festival Guide:

Sam (Miranda Kent) is a young scientific genius striving in vain to reproduce the results of a breakthrough experiment she began four
years ago. When her infinitely patient boyfriend Ben (Reid Scott) proposes, Sam”s highly practical mind can”t handle the number of variables that accompany Ben”s offer of marriage and lifelong commitment. When Ben moves to China for a prestigious fellowship, Sam decides to put her love life through a set of trials in order to prove or disprove that Ben is the only one for her. Kent”s performance as an ambitious young woman in her late twenties, unsure of the direction her life is taking, is at once endearing and hilarious. Losing Control”s supporting cast members demonstrate high aptitude for delivery of Weiss”s sharp, witty dialogue. Weiss also proves she possesses a talent for crafting scenes that will encourage almost constant laughter, as Sam”s earnest execution of her romantic research places her in increasingly ridiculous situations. When all parts combine, the result is a highly entertaining independent film with plenty of charm.

Hey, David Wescott here again – this week I have something special.  For quite a while Darlene and I have kicked around an idea we called #scimom – basically a blog meme that tries to bring mom bloggers and science bloggers (and people who are both mom bloggers AND science bloggers) together.   In my day job I spend a lot of time navigating different online communities, and over the years I’ve found these communities remain fairly isolated.

The “rules” of #scimom are very simple, and really anyone from either online community can participate.  (Even if you’re not a mom or a scientist, you can join in too.)  You can find the background at my member blog at Science for Citizens and the ways to participate are as follows:

1) if you’re a mom blogger, write a post this month that has something to do about science or science blogging. It could be anything -your love (or hatred) of science or a particular scientist, a hope you have for your child, an appropriate role model, whatever you like. Just make it personal and relevant to your life.

2) if you’re a science blogger, write a post this month that has something to do with parenting or parent blogging. Maybe it’s something your parent did to get you interested in science. Maybe it’s on the science of parenting. Maybe it’s your love (or skepticism) of something in the mom-o-sphere. Just make it personal and relevant to your life.

3) if you’re a mom AND a scientist, then just write a post this month about how awesome it is to be a mom and a scientist or something like that. Maybe suggest a role model, or a story about why both roles are important to you. Just make it personal and relevant to your life. As far as I’m concerned you make an awesome role model and people should know about you.

4) ask another blogger in your online community to participate. You can call them out in your post like it’s a blog meme or you can ask them any way you like.

5) tag your post #scimom and I will keep track of the posts and link to them [at Science For Citizens] and my own blog It’s Not a Lecture. If you want to tweet a link to your post, just add the hashtag #scimom and we’ll keep a tally so people can find relevant posts to read.

6) read a post from a blogger in the OTHER community (i.e. if you’re a mom blogger read a participating science blogger’s post and vice versa) and leave a comment.

That’s it – write a post, read a post, comment on a post.  If you’re not a blogger, just check out the really cool links from some great bloggers.   Anyone can play along.  I hope you’ll join us!

Tonight at 7:30pm sharp, we’re surprising the bar patrons at the Artful Dodger in Philadelphia and bringing them a little science with their Monday Night Football! It’s the big Eagles-Redskins game!

I’ll be joined by Science Cheerleaders Allison (recent captain of the Eagles Cheerleaders who holds degrees in biology and chemistry) and Erin (recent St. Louis Rams cheerleader working on her PhD) and, ready? Professor Rhonda Hughes from Bryn Mawr College who played a big role in this Science of NFL Football segment about vectors!

Erin

Allison

We’re going to take over the bar for 15 minutes of science, football, procheerleaders and a hell of a lot of fun.
We’ll roll the video, talk about vectors, and encourage folks to check out the other nine Science of NFL Football segments, presented by the National Science Foundation and produced by NBC Sports and NBC Learn in partnership with the National Football League…all while challenging stereotypes and getting people jazzed about science!
This event is a preamble to the Philadelphia Science Festival.
The–now famous–Science Cheerleaders, will  be making a series of surprise pub visits. Want us to come to your favorite pub to sprinkle a little science? Let us know!

Summer, Houston Texans, NASA engineer

Hi! I’m Summer and I’m an engineer at NASA and a former Houston Texans cheerleader. Earlier, in my SciCheer interview, I talked about how my aerospace engineering courses helped increase my critical thinking skills. Well, this next Science of NFL Football segment aligns with that nicely.

In this segment, “Vectors,” NFL players Joey Harrington and Antonio Freemon demonstrate how velocity vectors play a role in calculating the perfect “threading a needle” play, or, completion (when a quarterback nails a perfect pass to a receiver). Wait until you see how vectors and critical thinking skills come together in the mind of a quarterback! I’m thrilled to introduce the third Science of NFL Football segment, produced in partnership with the NFL, NBC, and the National Science Foundation. Bring on VECTORS!

If you’re an educator, be sure to visit NBC Learn to download free supplemental educators’ guides. Goooo science! And Goooo National Science Foundation for making this possible. Previous Science of NFL Football segments can be found here.

The latest, greatest scientific insights from Occam’s Razor:
I recently clicked on a misleading tweet advertising an article on the science of waiting in line. It purported to tell me how to choose the best line when forced with such a decision, say, at the grocery store, but the article did no such thing. (I won’t name the respected publishing entity but will gladly link to it here!) Not all was lost, however; from this article I learned with fascination that there is actually a journal called “Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications,” which I can imagine few people are lining up to buy, pun most definitely intended. Though I hear the journal is a great place to work…trips into the cafeteria take only seconds!  They set the world record for fire-alarm building evacuation speed!  The company picnic is the best-organized—  okay, I’ll stop.

There is science behind the research, but the rather pedestrian findings are that people don’t like waiting in line and that line creators need to make their queues enjoyable.  Occam and wife are expecting a child and I’ve already been considering what a challenge it’s going to be to have a toddler at a queue-heavy place like, say, Disney World, though if you’ve ever stood in line there you know that Mickey does a pretty good job of keeping guests entertained while in line. There is Peter Pan’s Flight, where guests pass the time by coloring in images of the eternally youthful small boys and girls in Malaysia who make the Disney clothing line. And of course in “educational” Epcot, while in line for preachy Spaceship Earth, you can play a game of “trade-and-cap”: trade a bit of your conscience as you maneuver puffy, dark clouds – representing the Disney empire’s daily worldwide carbon output to which you are at that moment contributing – to places where they will least likely be immediately noticed, like the polar ice caps!  And lastly, while waiting at Pirates of the Caribbean you can play “Pirates of Hollywood,” where you are encouraged to enter the names and addresses of friends and neighbors you know to watch Disney-owned content on Youtube into a “fun” database!  The excitement never ends. A 100 percent true story is that the most entertained Occam ever was while in line at Disney World was while watching a handful of old, dapper Japanese guys waiting to enter Epcot with stunningly beautiful, very tall, very overdressed (and by that I mean “under” dressed) girls in like, six inch heels who at a family-friendly place like Disney you want to assume were their daughters but were clearly prostitutes.

While on the subject of shoes – and more from the science of “duh” – scientists recently studied the impact of such high heels on the feet of dancers and determined that…heels make your feet hurt!  Wha??  To put it in the very complex terms of Science Daily, “They found that bare-foot dancing spreads the force evenly between heel and toe, but the higher the shoe heels, the more the force is thrown forward on to the toes.” Wow!  And, “The shift of the high-pressure region from heel to forefoot when dancing in high-heels can lead to discomfort of the foot.”  No!  The best part about this study is that it was done at a Chinese university and our only hope in not being overtaken by the Chinese in the world economy is if they keep spending lavishly on Olympics’ opening ceremonies and keep throwing money at studies like this.  Psst, China:  the NSF is about to fund a major study on what kind of paper produces the worst paper cuts.  You better not try to fund a billion yen study and beat us to it!

As an aside, your host on this site, the Science Cheerleader, has been wearing impractical high heels every time Occam has been around her—but in her defense they do accentuate her incredible calves.

Lastly, and for some good old Texas-sized, meaty research you can really sink your teeth into, the University of Texas at Austin has reported the apparently confounding results of a sexual behavior study. Women who normally exhibited low sex drives reported increased sexual interest and satisfaction during the study…while receiving a placebo. A real head scratcher, until UT Austin revealed that the placebo was…diamond earrings!  No, what they’ve determined is that simply expecting to have an improved sex life and participating in such a study makes couples feel closer and more intimate.

As mentioned above, Occam’s wife is nearly nine months pregnant and with the associated discomfort the sorts of activities that put her in such a state have lately been understandably far from her mind.  I wonder how long it would take me to fake some UT Austin Office of Research letterhead….

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.

So I do have some ideas for spicing this game up.  As a recognized consultant on improving sports (among other ideas of mine adopted was ending the pracitce of euthanizing minor league baseball players with broken legs) my expertise is respected.  First of all, a new acronym is needed – “FIFA” just ain’t pretty, and it’s all about the acronyms.  I therefore propose a governing body called: Soccer Excitement for a Neverendingly Obsessed World (SEX NOW). Secondly, reduce the field to about a fifth its current size – all those players seem to always just be running somewhere and the ball is never near where it should be, namely the goal.  Lastly, cheerleaders wouldn’t hurt, and I have a few ideas from the Science Cheerleader’s gallery right here.

Although guys, science now tells that even if you find soccer a bit uninteresting, it might not be a bad idea to have your ladies watch.  New research shows that in certain bird species when a female bird watches a “sexy” male strut his stuff for awhile, the female gets more fertile and lays better eggs. There is no arguing that these World Cup guys are remarkable physical specimens, so just have your female partner tune in for a little bit and then go about having healthy, Ronaldo-inspired children…another form of soccer fever, as it were.  But considering his performance in the Cup – one goal – here’s hoping your scoring is better than his.

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.

SciCheer: What is your current position and what do you do?

Natalie: I develop and teach new classes for MIT’s undergraduate major in biological engineering. It’s an exciting and new field–and scary too. Genetic engineering has so much promise to do good things but there’s also a lot of uncertainty and nervousness: Genetically Modified Foods, nanotechnology, synthetic life forms…plenty of creepy movies start with biological engineering gone wrong. So I also spend time coordinating the local efforts to improve understanding of science and engineering. For instance the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) is a nationwide, grassroots effort to better connect science to society, and I help coordinate its Boston-area activities. Outreach is key to re-engaging the public with science. The websites, Understanding Science and BioBuilder, are also a resources that I try to talk about and promote in our local schools.

SciCheer: What forms of dance did you study/are you studying?

Natalie: Ballet…lots of ballet…and on that foundation I’ve studied Graham, Horton, and Cunningham technique, some musical theater, and these days lyrical jazz.

SciCheer: Do you find that being a dancer helped or hindered your studies or professional experiences? Were you taken seriously?

Natalie: There are lots of scientists who passionately pursue their artistic talents. Many scientists I know are musicians, others are fine artists. I haven’t met a lot who are dancers, but if I mention that I dance, then nearly everyone is very supportive and interested. The hardest part, for me, right now, is trying to find enough time for the two activities I love. I’m on the run most days, trying to be uber-efficient at everything. In some ways it helps me get more done, being this busy. But I’d be lying if I didn’t also say that there are lots of compromises. For instance, I don’t travel to as many scientific meetings as I might like and I definitely don’t get to as many dance classes as would be good for me.

SciCheer: Tell me a little about your favorite courses.

Natalie: I remember liking most of my classes, but I wish I’d worked harder at my writing and speaking skills early on. These turn out to be hugely important in any career, even more than grades and test scores. If you can’t communicate the work you’ve done, then you might as well not have done it, right?

SciCheer: Do you have any advice for middle or high school girls who might feel torn between following one dream (dancing) or following another (science) usually associated with, well, geeks?

Natalie: I like the Katharine Hepburn quote, “If you always do what interests you, at least one person is pleased.” It’s hard to follow this advice when you’re in school since rules are everywhere and you’re always being judged or tested, and being “well rounded” is highly prized. But eventually you’ll be on a path that you can define and it’s really important to know what you’d like to do with that freedom and what it takes to make your dream a reality.

SciCheer: Best dance experience?

Natalie: Don’t ask me to choose a best! I’ve worked with wonderful teachers and choreographers who took a heart-felt interest in me. I’ve also danced with amazing companies and dancers. They feel like family. These days, I don’t dance with a company but every week I do take class with my dance family. I’m also able to support the younger dancers at the studio through Boston Youth Moves, the studio’s pre-professional training program.

SciCheer: Best academic experience related to science?

Natalie: I love coming into the lab in the morning to see if my overnight experiments worked. There’s something incredibly satisfying and fun about that. But even more, I love the teaching I can do in the lab. My students are so excited to be learning new things and investigating ideas themselves, and they’re so smart! Watching them discover that research could be a path for them is the best part of my job.

SciCheer: Anything else you’d like to add?

Natalie: I would spend my days exactly the way I do now, even if I didn’t get paid for it. Actually, maybe I don’t want people to know that!

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.