Skip to main content

A quick intro:



As a chem major, I get way too excited about talking to random people about chemistry. Today for example, I had a field day explaining to my barista why her chemistry teacher sometimes says hydrogen has a +1 charge and sometimes says all the elements on the periodic table are neutral.  When I talk to non-chemists about chemistry, it makes me feel all tingly inside. Does this mean that I am meant to be a pre-school teacher? Is it because I have a power complex and enjoy feeling like I know more than everyone else? Do all pre-school teachers have power complexes? 

I prefer to think that my excitement is born from my strong belief in the power of critical thinking, reasoning, and of course, the scientific method. Communicating the importance of these tools to non-believers, skeptics or those that just can’t be bothered seems to me to be a noble endeavor. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good skeptic. In fact, skepticism is one of the qualities I think all good scientists possess.

In my short 2 decades on this earth, I have come to the conclusion that there is a lack of clear, open, and non-elitist communication between us sciency-types and those that are spending their time thinking about other important things—like whether Shakespeare’s stuff was stolen, how we can improve the economy, or who the hell let the dogs out. 

Before I scrap my plans to attend grad-school for neuroscience research to pursue a science writing career, I thought I’d try my hand at this open, non-elitist communication thing. I hope with this blog I can summarize and cite some sciency tidbits that I find interesting in a way that will make all of you interested in them too. The point is, I don’t think science is just for scientists, and whether you slept through your high school chemistry class or read your physics textbook from cover to cover, I think you’ll enjoy this blog.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AlphaFold2 Part 2: The ion channel challenge

Last month I wrote about the wonders and perils of the artificial intelligence program that predicts 3D protein structures, AlphaFold2. As an ion channel enthusiast , I naturally wanted to know how AlphaFold2 performs at predicting the structures of proteins embedded in cell membranes. When I search PubMed for articles that mention both "AlphaFold" and "ion channel" I only get 34 hits. This surprised me, given the hype and the general paranoia around AI replacing humanity. If we use these search results as a proxy for the state of the ion channel protein structure prediction field, I'd say the juice is still in the coconut. I wanted to know how well AF2 would do at predicting an ion channel protein structure, so I asked it to generate the structure of Kv2.1, a voltage-gated potassium ion channel that I studied during graduate school. Kv2.1 is a pretty important protein. It regulates neuron firing throughout the brain and body where it helps us learn new stuff, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

iPSCs, the new model organism?

Induced pluripotent stem cells. The name doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and it certainly doesn't conjure images of mice, fruit flies, monkeys, or any of the other classic model organisms used for basic biomedical research. These so called "model organisms" are just that; animals that help scientists model the way that the most promising human therapeutics in the collective pipeline will behave in humans. And now induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, are becoming an increasingly popular tool used for developing and testing novel drugs way before we expose any real human patients to them. The upside to using model organisms is pretty obvious -- we minimize exposure of humans to potentially unsafe molecules. The downsides are many, but one big one is that sometimes potential new drug molecules look really promising when they are given to a mouse with a human-like disease, but then that same molecule does nothing (or worse, is toxic!) when it goes into human clin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Food for Thought

Last week I learned something wild about our brains and bodies that has to do with the way we taste food. It turns out our body knows when we are eating something nutritive or when we are just eating junk. Okay, I know you’re freaking out right now because somehow your brain is keeping track of when you eat a kale salad vs. a fried chicken thigh – like Santa making his naughty vs nice list – but that’s not quite what I mean. What I mean is that your brain knows when the food you’re eating contains calories or not. The crazy thing is that when your fed and happy, your brain doesn’t care whether you eat energy-rich foods or not and your preferences are dominated by flavor. However, if you find yourself stranded on a desert island going on a week without food, your brain is going to know whether you climbed that tree for the juicy, sweet coconut or whether you slammed that last Sweet-N-Low packet you’ve been saving in your pocket since your plane crashed. This is research I heard ab...
3 comments
Read more