Close
Story Time

The Devil Wears Science Journey

May 4, 2023

Working behind the scenes of an event can be an eye-opening experience, especially when it’s a science show with a unique twist. That’s exactly what happened when I had the opportunity to be a part of the Atlanta Science Festival’s The Devil Wears Science fashion science show in March. Since it was my first time working as part of both a science show and fashion show, I was especially eager to be part of such a unique and innovative event. This immersive experience allowed me to gain valuable insights into the inner workings of a successful show, and I was amazed at the amount of hard work, creativity, and attention to detail that goes into putting on such an event.

 

My group, Too Hot To Handle, focused on discussing and demonstrating the importance of heat stroke prevention through the use of protective clothing, specifically a beekeeping suit, during the event. My teammates were Claudia Ortega and Sachit Swaminathan and in the weeks leading up the show, we worked on reaching out to individuals in the beekeeping community to model and experts in the field of heat stroke prevention to present at the event, and also gathered information about the science behind our topic. 

 

Prior to the event, I had very minimal knowledge about beekeeping suits, particularly as it relates to heat stroke prevention, so it was quite fascinating to do research and learn more about it. While there aren’t a large amount of scholarly resources on the topic, I tried to understand the different parts and materials of beekeeping suits and then did research on each fabric in relation to heat resistance. Moreover, ​​as I delved into the topic, I realized how much thought and consideration goes into selecting the right materials and design elements for gear such as beekeeping suits, especially since the consequences of inadequate protection could be severe. 

 

There were some challenges my team and I faced during the planning of the event, particularly in regards to contacting people to discuss the science behind heat resistant gear. Initially, we planned for experts to discuss wearable heat sensor devices and then relate that to the design of heat resistant fabric in beekeeping suits, but we faced some difficulties in finding available experts to participate. After further attempts to contact other experts in the field, we decided to present the science portion of the presentation ourselves and focused on gathering research on the topic. 

 

In addition to my work behind the scenes, I also had the opportunity to challenge myself and grow in my presentation skills. As the day of the festival approached, I decided to join Sachit in presenting the science portion of the event, which was a significant step out of my comfort zone. I conducted more research to develop a scientifically accurate script, and we kept making edits between the slideshow and script to allow the content to align. I was slightly behind at times due to preparing for a conference I had to attend later that week, but I was determined to gather all the necessary information and be confident in my speaking parts.

 

On the day of the science fashion show, I was nervous as I arrived at the Kendeda building in my blazer clutching my freshly printed script.  Since there was some time to spare before the show began, I decided to use the opportunity to practice rehearsing for the presentation with my other teammates. This not only helped me to feel more confident and prepared, but it also allowed us to fine-tune the script and the visuals of our presentation, ensuring that everything was in sync and aligned with the overall vision of the show. As the presentation drew near, we gathered with our new models and went over the directions for modeling the beekeeping suits. Despite the initial setback of our previous model not being able to attend, we worked together and found a solution, and as we worked out other technical issues that arose, my confidence grew, and I became more and more assured in my part of the event.

 

As our team took the stage and our presentation began, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of excitement mixed with a hint of nervousness. However, the more I spoke, the more my confidence grew and before I knew it, our part was over. The feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction was truly indescribable, and it was amazing to see all our hard work finally come to fruition. 

 

But the night didn’t end there. As the other teams took the stage, the energy in the room continued to grow. I was captivated by the creativity and passion that each team brought to their presentations and it was incredible to see the range of scientific topics and the level of detail that went into each one. 

 

Overall, I came away from this experience with a greater appreciation for the intersection of science and fashion, and the power of collaboration to bring together different perspectives and talents. It was an amazing opportunity to learn and grow and I look forward to participating in future events that combine my love of STEM and creativity.

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Science Behind Dyeing My Hair (with cool pics!)
Field Notes, Story Time, today i learned (til)
Children Response to Conflicting Information
Story Time
Don’t call me bird-brained!
Adult African-American man wearing a black mask talks about presentation titled "Building Better Batteries".
Story Time, today i learned (til)
A science communicator takes a communications class?!

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.