Dance/Life: Launching Projects in three fronts

     Last Sunday (8/28), I went to a brunch with some friends. The food at the Latin/Guatemalan restaurant, Cafe Kacao in OKC, was pretty good. I recommend.

[Berry pancakes]

 It was a project launch discussion (sort of) that Tango is involved. Something that includes (i) hosting pros and promoting workshops, (ii) work on group choreo for performance, and that kind of things.

As I lost 15-18 lbs during the summer and my health concern is lifted, I feel like start dancing more.




    For my professional work as a scientist, there are a few projects running in parallel. Among them, after going through some preparatory phase, a collaborative project with a Japanese group was initiated on our side. 

It is a simple collaboration. They have unique/rare technique to analyze samples. We have unique/rare samples. We provide samples, they analyze them, and see the results. The launch was to start preparing samples on our side. A little bit of training of my student is involved, too.

I am looking forward to seeing the results.



    The third launch is to reboot the Tango book project. I did write a couple of drafts, but did not like structures in these previous versions. And the project got stuck.

It turned out that when I write something, I need structure first. Details can come later.

Recently I revised the table of contents, and am still working on the order of presentation. 

I'll keep working on it for a while at night, and will see how it looks.



    Although I am well aware that only completed projects count, every time I launch new one, I still feel good. I feel like my overall productivity is coming back. I love it.

The summer of 2016 is pretty much over, and there have been cool nights. Let's see how the projects grow in upcoming months.

Dance: Differences in Social Tango and Stage Tango (1).

It's already Thursday evening. Time flies. The Olympic games in Rio feel long past.


As in previous entry, I went to a Stage Tango show and a milonga in Dallas a few weeks ago. The performers of the show came to the milonga for "Good job well done" party. I enjoyed mingling them.


In such a setting, it was easy to notice the difference between Stage dancers and social dancers. Simply, stage dancers stood out, even in a social party. 

Of course they are not on separate tracks (or are they?) and in some cases the boundary blurs. But the difference was there.


Watching that difference, I was thinking about it; how can I define the difference, and is there any way to "fix it" for the benefit of social dancers to look "better"?


[Note: Some may argue if such "fix" is necessary. I'd rather not to argue to convert someone here. You can follow your convictions. But I like "better" dances, and I'd rather write to someone who finds this kind of writing interesting or helpful.]

(1) Mindsets 

First of all, I'll point out that most social dancers never even thought about "looking good" and "looking correct" like Stage dancers.

Stage dance is a show, an entertainment FOR OTHERS, and how they look is pretty much everything. In contrast, social dancers come to the party with a variety of expectations, mostly FOR SELF. Frequently used words by social dancers, such as "feeling","connection","personal connection" "fun""gentle""subtle",... many of them have introverted viewpoint. They don't think the dance's appearance as primary purpose for dancing.

I say nothing is wrong with the difference. But the difference in the mindsets will make a world of difference in the outcome, between Stage dance and social dance.



The difference is like the difference between a face with full make-up on, worked meticulously to look good in front of mirror, and a face just-right-out-of-the-bed and never even been checked.


This video might help you to "see" the difference.

Youtube "The Power of Makeup"

To me, this video was quite convincing about the power of "looks".


I'll write more about the differences some time later. But for this entry, in short, Stage dancers understand the importance of the looks, and if you want to look good, you got to pay attention to how you look.

For social dance, that much self-consciousness is not required. Probably you are busy gazing each other, anyway.

But it won't hurt to learn how to switch your mindset at your will, and pull up the dance you want. 




[Disclaimer: The video is not mine. All rights belong to the producer(s).]

Science: Thoughts on "Big data" (-omics) approach in medical science

This past week I got two paper published; one for original research, another for review article. It is coincidence that the publication dates fell on the same week. But hey, I say it was a good week.

Links to the NCBI-pubmed abstract page: 
(Pubmed is a Governmental database for lifescience publications. We use it regularly.)

Research article: "Systemic chromosome instability in Shugoshin-1 mice resulted in compromised glutathione pathway, activation of Wnt signaling and defects in immune system in the lung"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27526110


Review article: "Emerging links among Chromosome Instability (CIN), cancer, and aging"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27533343



I use "Big data" (-omics) approach for my research. An example is the research article.


An approach that has been the gold standard for science is "hypothesis driven" approach. 

Based on existing data, we deduce a mechanism, build a hypothesis, test it with experiments, and prove (or disprove) the hypothesis. If it is correct, we write a paper and publish it. 

Imagine professional baseball. 30% batting average (hereafter "hitting rate") makes you an excellent hitter, and 40% puts you among the greatest.

We scientists do not openly talk about the "hitting rate" for our hypotheses; how much of the hypotheses we conjure are supported by experiments and correct. 

Like baseball players, I am assuming that there are "good" scientists with higher hitting rates, and "bad" scientists with poorer hitting rates.

Judging from an interview article by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, who won the Nobel prize in 2012 for his contribution on induced pluripotent stem cells, what he considers "normal" is around 20% hitting rate. He would start suspecting some kind of fraud or mistake if the hitting rate goes too high (30-40% or more).

Right. We may not easily admit, but there are many "incorrect" hypotheses that were not supported by experiments.


Now,......

Technological advances in last two decades enable us to take another approach. Some call it "data-driven" approach.

With the technology, we obtain a "big" dataset. In my case, it is profiles for all expressed genes (called transcriptomics) in the sample tissues. The technology does not discriminate or focus on a specific gene of interest. The technology does the job for all 20000+ genes in an unbiased manner.

Afterwards, with bioinformatics software, we figure out what is "wrong", or different, in the samples.


Scientists have their own training background. Immunologists know more about immunology than others, and cell biologists know more about the event they study than others.

Technology and computer don't care about my training background. They just point out the differences in the samples. Many of them are unexpected.

From the dataset that was obtained in an unbiased manner, I can start building hypotheses that are already backed up by data. We build "correct" hypotheses, and test them. 

My own training background was molecular genetics and cell biology. But if necessary, I will team up with immunologist, cell biologist, or whoever that has necessary skills.


It sounds like cheating, doesn't it? It is not. 

In my opinion, Data-driven science is a valid approach that can compete against, or complement, conventional hypothesis-driven approach in a very productive manner. 

It will yield results and will help advance biomedical research.


We humans are heavily biased. Scientists are no exception. Scientists have training backgrounds, that can affect their thoughts and course of actions. We may start hitting all nails because we have a hammer.

Cells and organs don't care about my research background. What works, works for them.

I work in translational oncology now. When we are dealing with the body, be it of animal or human, what matters most is that we consider all factors and events, so that we can take informed and intelligent approaches to tackle diseases.

Conventional hypothesis-driven approach may have been intelligent, but when you are dealing with the body as a whole, you may not be informed enough. Data-driven approach can shed lights on the blind spots created by our biases.


I love the "big data" approach. I don't have to worry about my 'hitting rate". I'll just swing the bat at the place where I know the ball will be coming. 

The joy of getting "hits" (getting the hypothesis correct) never gets old. Just be mindful about the novelty and not fall into confirmatory science.

Science: A week full of reviewing

Last week, for some reason, there were many reviewing work for manuscripts by others.


In science, we anonymously review manuscripts written by colleagues in the same research field. It is called peer review system. 

There are only limited number of people working in the same (or closely related) research field. That means that there are limited number of people who are knowledgeable enough on the subject and who can make appropriate judgement on the values in the manuscript.

When a manuscript on a certain subject is submitted to a journal, the editor may send the manuscript for review and evaluation to a few experts in the field. Based on their comments, the editorial office makes judgement on whether the manuscript would be published in the journal.


The review work is usually voluntary, requested (or solicited) by a journal's editor. We do not get paid for reviewing manuscripts. It is basically a community service.

I usually accept to review, unless they request to review a manuscript that is not involved in my expertise (rare), or unless I am totally swamped by some other work (that can happen).


Reviewing others' work has some merits beyond community service and good karma. For example, I can get in touch with a latest work in the field, and can participate in the generation process of a scientific paper. Also, it can be interesting to see how well the authors respond. It can be educational to watch how other "good professionals" work.

Reviewing certainly can add some appreciation to this "science as a work".



Also in last week, a review came back for my own manuscript that was submitted about 3 months ago. Their comments are constructive and are reasonable. They are something I can address. I'll be on them.


This work puts us in the both sides; the reviewer and the reviewed. In this profession, we encounter occasions to get over with "my side bias" more often than general population. 

Dance: Dallas milonga 08/06/2016

A follow-up for last entry "Shades of Tango 2016". A theater review article titled "Rhythm of the Night" by Teresa Marrero, published in Theaterjones North Texas Performing Arts News, 08/04/2016.

http://www.theaterjones.com/ntx/reviews/20160802223059/2016-08-04/Evolution-Tango/Shades-of-Tango


Aug.6 is my birthday. On a whim, I traveled to Dallas for a milonga at Studio 22. 

A 3.5-4 hr drive per one way is a good amount of time for thinking, from future plans to elaborating some random ideas. Either way I make it a rule to have a "back to the drawing board" planning session in my birthday. It might as well be done while driving.

I enjoyed the milonga sharing the floor with a variety of people, and Hugo and Celina's exhibition performances. I appreciate welcoming hosting by George and Jairelbhi. I was also glad to see some other people from OK.

[A Good Party 08/06/2016]

[The sky is as big as ever in Texas-OK border area]

Also in this weekend:

 Wedding for Harrison and MaryAnn. May they live happily for a long time.


 "See you again" greeting party for Roy, who is moving to South Dakota for a faculty position. Any good South Dakota joke, anyone?

[Will this do?]

Dance: "Shades of Tango 2016"

On 7/29-30 weekend in Dallas, there was "Shades of Tango", a Stage Tango production. 

The show was led by two lead Argentine Tango couples, George and Jairelbhi Furlong and Hugo Patyn and Celina Rotundo. 

The Furlongs base in Dallas, and Hugo and Celina often visit and stay there from Buenos Aires.


There were three other couples (Carlos and Maureen, Allen and Jennifer, and David and Martha Wells from OKC), and musicians (Eduardo/pianist, Mariano/bandneon player,  Mark/violinist, and Roberto/guitarist). 

Of course, as a stage production, more people were involved in the backstage (theater manager, lighting, acoustic effects, filming, make-up, dress, reception, etc). Lots of efforts went in to the show.


The show had 24 musical numbers and a good size; 45 min Act 1-(15min intermission)-45min Act 2. As the title says, the show displayed a variety of aspects of contemporary Stage Argentine Tango; beautiful Nuevo, playful Vals, comedic Milonga and serious Tango in segments. 

As a Stage professionals' production, there were many aerials, lifts, drops, dips, trio and acts,....very entertaining mix of "Shades of Tango". If you watch this production, you can watch all-the-goodies of contemporary Stage Argentine Tango. 


If you missed it, .......don't miss this show next time. For any art/culture, it is very important to see the real deal, and the show was the real deal.



Tango has many faces, and this type of show is an important part of the Tango as a culture.

As a culture, it is something that is inherited and passed on from people to people. My friends participated from OKC as dancers, and were mentored by the lead couples. That should be a great experience for the friends. I am glad for them. Good work well done.

[After the show, backstage]

Afterwards, I attended a milonga at PJ's, having plenty of fun, befriended with people there, and drove back to OKC. [I got a grant deadline on this Wed (8/3), and am pretty hectic.]


It was a good weekend for me. I should do this more often.