I’ve been thinking about transcription factors (TFs).

Not just as a scientist studying molecular mechanisms, but as a human trying to understand how we move through the world—how we get stuck, how we break free, and who helps us along the way.

In this post, I’m trying something different. Instead of making a polished explainer video, I’m breaking the experience apart. You’ll find video blocks where I explain the science, text passages where I expand on ideas, and moments where I invite you to pause, reflect, and share your own experience.

Think of it as a conversation, not a lecture. Jump in wherever you feel drawn.

Let’s start with the biology.

The Science Of Transcription Factors

Nothing Happens Alone

Here’s what strikes me about this process:

A gene can’t express itself without help. It sits there, full of potential, carrying the instructions to create something—but it needs the conditions to be right, the transcription factors to come alongside it, bind to it, and say: “Yes. Now. Let’s go.”

Sometimes it needs just one. Sometimes it needs many, working together.

And here’s the part that always gets me: transcription factors also originate from a gene that encodes them. They also had to be transcribed. They also needed help to become what they are.

It’s help all the way down—collaboration, community, recursive support.

Which made me think: What if we’re all like this?

What If We Are All Transcription Factors?

The Ones Who Hover

I keep coming back to this image: the transcription factor that hovers around.

It doesn’t force. It doesn’t push. It just... is there. And at some point, when the conditions are right, it moves closer. It binds. It helps.

Some of my transcription factors have been papers I read that made something click. My partner, who listens when I’m tangled in my own thoughts. A colleague from a completely different field who asked one question that unlocked weeks of stuck thinking. A friend who said, “You know you don’t have to solve this right now, right?”

They didn’t tell me what to do. They helped me transcribe my own message.

Your Turn

Who has been hovering around in your life? Share a moment when someone helped you transcribe your own message.

Leave a comment

In My Life, This Looks Like...

When The Machinery Moves Forward

Proteins are eventually the outcome. When the transcription machinery assembles and moves into action—when all the pieces align and nothing blocks its path—something new begins to take shape.

In biology, proteins are life’s working molecules—they build structures, drive reactions, and carry signals that keep every cell alive.

In us: ideas, art, decisions, relationships, healed patterns, new paths forward.

But here’s what matters: the output isn’t always what you expect. Sometimes you think you’re making one thing, and the process transforms it into something entirely different. The transcription factors don’t just help you make what you already knew you wanted—they impact you and help you discover what is naturally coming to you, naturally made through you.

That’s when you know they’re working.

But There’s Another Kind

Not All Help Moves You Forward

This is the part that may seem counterintuitive at first. Transcription factors are not only about activation—helping things move, grow, and express. Many are. But some are regulatory, some are inhibitory. They tune or even block transcription. They say “not yet” or “not this way.” It is natural to see this as a negative. As a block, as something in the way.

But inhibition isn’t always obstruction. Sometimes it’s protection.

Sometimes the people who stop us, who make us pause, who say “wait—are you sure?” aren’t blocking our path. They’re keeping us from walking off a cliff we couldn’t see yet.

The trick is to learn which is which and staying open to all the messages and all kinds of help.

We’re All In This Together

Thank you for spending this time thinking about transcription factors with me—both the molecular kind and the human kind.

If something here resonated, I’d love to hear about it in the comments. If you know someone who might need to read this, share it with them. And if you want more explorations like this—where science meets metaphor meets life—subscribe below.

We’re all genes. We’re all transcription factors.

We’re all just trying to help each other walk our paths.

Your Turn

Who has been a transcription factor in your life? Tell me about someone who helped you move beyond a block.

Leave a comment

I’ve been thinking about academic learning and what often goes missing in the process. Too often it becomes about memorizing isolated facts rather than exploring the story of discovery—how one insight leads to another, how meaning emerges through connection.

The Franchise Problem

When academia becomes a franchise of knowledge, the system focuses on efficiently delivering established ideas rather than fostering discovery. Instead of asking, “What new insights can we discover?” or “Where do we disagree?”, the driving question becomes, “How can we systematically transmit new data?” or “How do we build on what we already agree on?” The system becomes structural and predictable: come in, absorb the pre-existing framework, get credentialed, get out, and repeat.

The ideas that have already established themselves are the ones most likely to get developed further. Imagine this: You become a student of a scientific field, learning everything that shaped it into its current form. Then you set out to discover something new—and when you do, it had better fit the architecture of the field as it stands. You join a lab, adopt someone’s style of thinking, and perhaps eventually develop your own but often, that new style remains constrained by the intellectual framework you inherited.

Rarely do people completely break out. The ones who do—many Nobel laureates—discover something no one else did, precisely because they think like no one else does, because they create their own architecture.

Consider Frances Arnold, who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter. Arnold pioneered the directed evolution of enzymes—mimicking evolution itself to create enzymes with novel functions. The approach was obvious to her, yet the field had largely overlooked it. Absorbing the framework of four billion years of natural selection, Arnold used it to create enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions in entirely new ways—enabling applications from biofuel production to pharmaceutical synthesis and enzymes capable of breaking down environmental waste.

This kind of revolutionary thinking cannot emerge from rigid academic conditioning. While some mentors and programs do foster genuine exploration, structural incentives too often favor standardization over curiosity. And the curious minds? Too often, they remain silent.

The Courage of Unpolluted Curiosity

Breakthrough thinkers share one essential trait: fearlessness. It doesn’t matter what established wisdom says—they follow their vision. Breaking from accepted norms is terrifying. Will you be supported? Taken seriously? Able to continue your work?

Beyond bravery, they also possess something rarer: childlike curiosity. There’s a spark in their eyes when they discuss their work. A clarity. Curiosity in its rawest form—like a child determined to understand exactly how a cricket jumps, following it patiently until they see what they need to see.

What do we call this desire? ‘Purity’ comes closest. A quiet fire. No boxes, no corners, no walls. If I need to travel 5,000 miles north to eventually come back 10,000 miles south for the answers, I’ll do it.

When curiosity moves organically, we are guided by the discoveries we make, the new knowledge we generate. For this, we have to be free.

Information versus Knowledge

Take music, for example. You can memorize the framework—the notes, the standard scales—but that’s just retaining information without depth. You could instead learn to appreciate why beautiful sounds emerge, how notes weave together to create melodies that move something in you.

Genuinely solving a scientific problem is similarly immersive. Clues can appear anywhere—while performing daily tasks, learning an instrument, or walking through Central Park. Knowledge emerges once information has been fully internalized and made personal.

Information is the gathering of data. Knowledge is data digested and transformed into understanding.

Many PhD programs theoretically provide freedom—minimal coursework after the first year, flexibility in choosing courses and research direction, complete autonomy over when and how to work. But something crucial is often missing: the space to ask fundamental questions like, How does this knowledge shape my understanding of the world? How does it inform my work or thinking? That’s when understanding acquires depth.

This distinction between information accumulation and knowledge creation became intimately clear to me during my own PhD journey, when the space for genuine reflection revealed insights that months of conventional work had not.

The Silence That Speaks

I was in my second year, grinding through experiments in the lab, collecting hundreds of datasets, testing antibody combinations, trying to establish a strategy to isolate the main cell types from the human cortex—work that felt urgent and important, yet the goal felt frustratingly elusive.

I had learned the foundations from my mentor and absorbed established frameworks. But in the day-to-day grind, I hadn’t found the silence I needed to truly review, sit with, and dive deeply into the data.

Then the pandemic hit, and suddenly I had nothing but time and quiet.

In that silence, everything shifted. Without the chatter of the academic machinery—the pressure of daily experiments, the noise of frequent meetings—I could finally see what had been there all along. The breakthrough became obvious: I could sort the cell types all at once using a step-by-step filtering approach—like a decision tree. First, separate cells broadly into groups by a first defining feature, then within those groups, sort by another feature that creates subgroups, mirroring how biology naturally organizes itself.

It was all mapped out in my head. I knew it would work.

When I finally returned to the lab, I couldn’t wait to run the experiment. I did it. And it worked. That day, my colleague looked at the results in amazement: “Are you taking off two weeks now?” Puzzled, I asked why. She smiled: “Because you just sorted 16 cell types from one sample—work that usually takes two weeks.”

She was right, and the breakthrough wasn’t just the speed—most of these 16 cell types had not been cleanly isolated. Now, they could all be captured in a single experiment. What wasn’t visible was the foundation that made this efficiency possible: the weeks of silent work where information transformed into understanding. I had the freedom to step back, examine the data from multiple angles, and let patterns emerge. That reflective space didn’t just clarify the datasets—it revealed a concrete strategy, a way to combine markers and sorting steps that made the experiment succeed in one run.

That’s the difference between collecting information and creating understanding. Knowledge emerges when we allow ourselves the time and space to process, reflect, and connect the pieces in a genuinely new way. Even within supportive environments, the daily responsibilities and pressures of academic life can crowd out the space needed for genuine reflection.

The Foundation Needed for Collaboration

Before meaningful collaboration can happen, knowledge must first be created individually. When people bring genuine understanding rather than accumulated facts, their different ways of processing information can complement each other to build something new. Then insights can be shared, exchanged, and built upon.

If you want to partner with someone intellectually, isn’t it essential to understand how they generate their knowledge? Are they bringing information, or moments of genuine understanding? Are the conversations based on integrated knowledge or mere facts?

The difference determines whether we’re building on a foundation of wisdom or simply adding to the noise.

That’s the foundation we need to create—the intentional cultivation of spaces where genuine curiosity can flourish. Spaces where the freedom to reflect transforms information into knowledge, enabling meaningful insight and innovation.

And the real question is: are we willing to create these spaces where we are, and do we have the courage to protect them when external pressures demand otherwise?

Your Turn

What spaces have allowed your deepest insights to emerge? Have you experienced moments when silence or intellectual freedom transformed your understanding? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Most days, I live in a language few people speak.

In the lab, precision is everything. We discuss “fluorescence-activated nuclear sorting” and “hierarchical Boolean gating strategies.” We debate antibody specificities and marker expression profiles. The conversations are dense, technical, necessary—but they exist in a world carefully walled off from everyday language. The ivory tower, people call it. And they’re not wrong.

Then came Science Saturday at Rockefeller University, when the campus opens its doors to everyone. My first time participating. Hundreds of children and families flooding through, exploring scientific wonders at stations scattered throughout the university. Kids dissecting sheep brains. Younger ones crafting neurons from pipe cleaners, beads, and glitter. The station I was helping with, “Escape the Cell,” was set up in a small round room decorated to look like the inside of a cell, complete with a curtain representing the entrance to the nucleus. Inside the nucleus, children would transcribe strings of DNA into RNA.

The Essence of Simplicity

In my daily work, I operate in a world of extraordinary detail. Every term matters. Every distinction is crucial. The rigor is what makes the science work. But standing in that decorated room, facing children’s expectant faces, I had to strip away the architecture I’d spent years building. No jargon. No technical precision. Just the essence—what drew me to this work before I knew any of the terms.

The Symphony

Watching the children engaged, something struck me: right at that moment, in their own cells, a transformation was happening—DNA being transcribed into RNA, then into protein. Making everything they are. Making them. As I was watching them, the ivory tower opened from within—and I found myself in wonder.

I saw the nucleus as the conductor at the podium, holding the score—the DNA. The conductor at the center, sending out messengers—the RNA—carrying the score out to the ribosomes, the musicians scattered throughout the cell. The ribosomes receiving the score and begin to play, each one adding its part. Together, creating the proteins, the building blocks of life.

That’s the symphony happening inside us, right now.

Carrying Both Worlds

On my way home, I ran into two moms who’d attended. They wanted to know if the day could be longer, if we could bring this into schools. And I thought: yes. This kind of connection should travel beyond campus, out into the world.

Because what I really want is for everyone to feel the wonder—the wonder of science, the wonder of themselves.

Science can feel like isolation. Rigid and exclusive. But when the ivory tower drops its defenses and breaks its codes into common language, something happens. We meet people who might not step into our world—and we step into theirs. The connection is real.

And I think: maybe it doesn’t have to be so rigid. Maybe I don’t have to choose between the precision I love and the wonder that drew me to science in the first place. I can hold both. The notes and the rhythm. The details and the big picture. The universe in a cell, and the cell in the universe.

That’s the real translation I’m learning to make: carrying both worlds with me.

Your Turn

What’s your experience with making complex ideas accessible? Have you ever had a moment where you reconnected with your own childhood wonder? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

Back then, I was deep in medical school in Austria, but something in me needed a different kind of summer. I wanted to learn French, and I also wanted to do a sport regularly. I signed up for language school during the day, and surf classes every afternoon. Every day. It was great—three weeks of that.

I chose surfing because I wanted a sport I'd never done before. It sounded like something I would really enjoy.

Those times in France were times of freedom, in spirit. That was a time when everything felt possible. Freedom felt like wind under my arms. I felt more like a bird. You know, it’s that time where life isn’t clear yet—so everything feels possible.

I returned to Austria to continue my medical studies. And returning—it felt different. Going back to Austria, no sea, no French? Yes, I always missed it. After finishing my studies, I went on a trip around the world with my friend Lola. Again, there were waves, oceans, diving, surfing. I felt light and free, like I did on that first trip.

And then, life happened - career, responsibilities... Fifteen years passed without me even realizing how far I'd drifted from that feeling.

But now I'm going surfing in Sayulita. And I'm very happy about that.

Your Turn

What's something you loved that you've drifted away from? What would it feel like to return to it, even if you'd "suck" at first?

Leave a comment

You know those moments when you're reminded why you chose this path? The Historic Readings and Great Discoveries journal club at Rockefeller University was exactly that—one of those experiences that cuts through the noise of publish-or-perish pressure and imposter syndrome to show what science really looks like when it's done right.

Journal clubs are a familiar rhythm in academic life: we gather to discuss a paper, debate methods, and reflect on what the work means for the field. But every so often, these gatherings spark something more personal — a reminder of why we do science in the first place.

Subscribe now

This week, at the journal club, I found myself leaving not just with notes on a paper, but with a deeper sense of what persistence, passion, and quiet dedication can look like in practice.

I walked into that room thinking about deadlines and grant applications. I walked out thinking about Dr. Svetlana Mojsov.

Here's what happened, and why it matters for anyone trying to make sense of what it means to build a life in research.

The Experience That Deepened My Perspective

Attending the journal club was an inspiring experience. I left with a renewed appreciation for the role of curiosity and passion in science — how progress is rarely linear, and how true breakthroughs often emerge after decades of quiet, focused work.

I was reminded that persistence can matter more than following a traditional career path, and that depth and careful thinking are far more valuable than chasing quick or prestigious results.

I was especially moved by Dr. Svetlana Mojsov, a soft-spoken woman with a mighty mind whose discovery of GLP-1 transformed our understanding of glucose metabolism. Working in a male-dominated field and outside the bounds of academic prestige, she remained devoted to her question — guided by passion, curiosity, and an extraordinary ability to recognize patterns others could not see. Her story is a powerful reminder that the heart of science lies not only in its findings, but in the people who pursue them with relentless passion and integrity.

What This Means for All of Us

What I took away from my time at the journal club is a sense of empowerment and a strengthened philosophy: good science takes time, care, and precision — and when approached this way, it will always stand the test of time.

For me, moments like these are what make the behind-the-scenes of research so meaningful. Science is built not only on data and results, but on the persistence and humanity of those who carry questions forward, year after year.

These are the conversations that don't happen enough in our field—the ones that remind us that behind every breakthrough that seems to appear overnight, there are often decades of someone asking the right questions, even when no one else understood why they mattered. Science, it is messy and nonlinear and sometimes lonely work. But maybe that’s exactly the point.

Your Turn

What moments have reminded you why you chose your path? I'd love to hear about them in the comments.

Leave a comment

Working in science is much like tending a garden. At times the soil is turned endlessly without bloom, and yet potential is always near.

Growth hides in stillness—always there, even when unseen—emerging through exploration, through openness to what takes shape.

Sometimes the path is carefully tended; other times it grows wild.

Growth follows its own rhythm, and learning arises in every corner. Noticing, exploring, opening to what unfolds—this is where discovery begins.

Through conversation, writing, exploring topics, learning something new, widening perspectives—this is how I begin.

I don’t need science to belong to me; I need it to show me beauty.

Your Turn

What gardens are you tending in your own life? Where do you find beauty in the process, even when the blooms aren't yet visible?

Leave a comment