<p>cpq1xtbu --
Congrats to your son. The week in Washington is a fabulous experience.<br>
It's not a ticket to Harvard...there are plenty of Intel finalists who have not been admitted to Harvard. However, it is a ticket an intensive week where there is an opportunity to meet some fascinating kids, mentors, business and political leaders...and develop a lifetime network with these people. </p>
<p>Hope you...or someone from the family...will be able to attend the awards evening.</p>
<p>Thanks, 2boysima. I am looking into flights now and actually there are some pretty good deals. Since we have a 10th grader who will be in school, my husband will probably have to stay home.
I agree about Harvard. I'm not sure there is a "ticket" to any Ivy.</p>
<p>Not every Intel finalist wants to attend Harvard, either! Some Intel finalists look for schools where they can continue their research and/or begin graduate work much earlier than is typical. Others look for the place that just feels right without regard to the school's USNWR ranking. The Intel STS winner a few years ago went to a state flagship. </p>
<p>Becoming an Intel finalist doesn't make one a Scientific Master of the Universe. It's not a PhD conferred at age 17. It may well open some doors, but it is still up to the student to walk through those doors and take advantages of the opportunities ahead. And those kids who build nuclear reactors in their dorm rooms or innovative robotics in the garage -- and didn't win Intel -- <em>those</em> are the ones who will be setting the pace.</p>
<p>Almost fifty years ago, Oleh Hornykiewicz discovered that l-dopa could be used to treat Parkinsons Disease. While there have been some advances in Parkinsons Disease since then, l-dopa is still the primary treatment for Parkinsons. Why have there been no blockbuster breakthroughs in almost fifty years? Why are the cause(s) of Parkinsons still unknown for the most part? Why is there no cure? Why is there no prevention? As one who has Parkinsons disease, I am very interested in answers and solutions.</p>
<p>Back to my question - Why have there been no blockbuster breakthroughs in almost fifty years towards the treatment, cure, or understanding of Parkinsons Disease?
One answer, I believe, is a result of the way science is done in research labs. I gather that in most labs that the lab is usually headed by a professor who sets the primary focus for the lab, and that the lab is populated by various post-docs and graduate students. While sometimes there are breakthroughs in completely new areas, for the most part the research builds on prior research in small increments. From what I can tell, this slow, incremental approach is not the path to a cure for Parkinsons. Instead, there needs to be some new insights, some new directions, some new ideas. Parkinsons researchers I have talked with also tell me privately that we shouldnt expect the availability of embryonic stem cell research to be the solution to Parkinsons, either.</p>
<p>After attending the last three ISEFs, and after reading about the STS, it appears that the ISEF & STS are unknowingly teaching the student scientists that real science consists primarily of this slow, incremental approach. The students quickly learn that this approach also often results in receiving top awards at ISEF and STS. One can elucidate this route to ISEF and STS awards further by listing the typical steps that are involved, which appear to be: 1) get an internship in a research lab, 2) have someone in the lab come up with a project that is just a small spin-off of something the lab is already working on, 3) learn the lab procedures and protocols, 4) present the results as your original research 5) learn all you can about the subject you researched to make sure you can get through the judging</p>
<p>So, are these high school students who work in the research labs taught that real science plays it safe with the incremental approach or that real science involves taking risks, or trying out an unusual idea, or having a flash of brilliant insight? While the internship in a research lab while in high school may inspire the students, and while the internship will also likely cause the student to become proficient at performing experiments in the area that their mentor is teaching them, it is hard to say if these experiences will end up with the scientist who finds the cure for Parkinsons.</p>
<p>The trouble is , that no one will pay for research that isn't half done all ready. So scientists who'd like to try new things can't. It's not about how we train scientists, it's about how we fund them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"So, are these high school students who work in the research labs taught that real science plays it safe with the incremental approach or that real science involves taking risks,"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another factor is reputation, many PhD are trying to get tenure and to get tenure you have to be producing something, if you are researching this new field there are going to be some failures and well failures don't result in published paper and therefore no awards for the research and vis a vis the university. So it is more incentive for the researcher to "play it safe" accomplish something and then get tenure.
And even after they get tenure, they still have to keep thier rep up they don't want to push something new only to have it revealed to be a complete failure. If you read through the articles of the non-major journals you see alot of research published that is not groundbreaking.</p>
<p>Also like mathmom said, money is a drive NOT to find cures for diseases. I do not know anyone with parkinson, but if it is like any other major disease there are treatments galore. These treatments cost money and are a continual amount of money for the companies that make the products. If the person with parkinson's is cured then away goes the money. I am very convinced that if companies wanted to develop cures the money and talent is there to make it happen, but I think alot of pharma research is focused on developing products that treat and don't cure. The only way to develop a cure would be from NIH funding or some other federal source and that occurs at research universities where the above problem may occur.</p>
<p>I wasn't saying that money was driving people not to find cures, it's NIH that's the problem. You can't get funding from them without solid results. There are many scientists out there that would love to cure Parkinson's, but they can't afford to take a risky approach. It's also a question of funding, My husband used to do more basic research, but he's drifted into studying breast cancer because that's where the money is.</p>
<p>There also has been an 8 year blockage of innovative stem cell research, which has major implications in parkinson's. Hopefully we will see major movement forward under the Obama administration.</p>
<p>PBS Frontline is having a special on Feb 3 about Parkinsons.
You can also watch it online.</p>
<p>I am concerned that researching embryonic stem cells for a cure for Parkinsons will open up a black hole for research funding dollars, end up with no cure, and cut funding for other approaches to a cure.</p>
<p>Regarding the prospect of finding a cure for Parkinsons via embryonic stem cell research at the 2006 World Parkinson Congress I asked the assembled panel of experts at a seminar on E.S. cells what would stop Parkinsons from simply wiping out the brain cells again, unless they can pinpoint what starts Parkinsons in the 1st place? There was hardly any response from the panel one panel member said they no doubt have a lot of work to do. Theres also the problem of how to stop the cells from proliferating too much a somewhat similar problem led to the moratorium on fetal cell transplantation as a result of the study:</p>
<p>From P.E. Greene & Stanley Fahns abstract of:
Status of fetal tissue transplantation for the treatment of advanced Parkinson disease.
Five of 33 implant-treated patients developed involuntary movements (dyskinesias or dystonia) that could not be eliminated by reducing antiparkinsonian medications. These included four patients with the best responses to transplantation</p>
<p>4 patients developed a previously unreported tragic complication: severe dyskinesias in the absence of any levodopa therapy. In 2 patients, the dyskinesias involved craniofacial muscles, leading to dysphagia and requiring placement of a feeding tube in one patient. The other of these 2 patients required treatment with pallidotomy to relieve the dyskinesias. Another patient developed leg dyskinesias severe enough to make walking impossible. Although this has not been proven, a possible explanation of these dyskinesias is excessive growth of the transplanted tissue. Indeed, there is no mechanism for limiting the growth of the cell implants</p>
<p>For both the Intel ISEF and Intel STS, students who dont win but who know their project was just as good as the project of someone who won, this is good training for life as shown by this example -<br>
The 2000 award of the Nobel Prize in medicine provoked an open letter to the award committee signed by more than 250 neuroscientists. The award went to three researchers for their work on how nerve cells exchange signals, and the Nobel Foundation's announcement pointed out the relevance of such work for treating Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders. However, Oleh Hornykiewicz, who discovered the underlying neurotransmitter deficit in Parkinson's disease--and designed the treatment still in use today as the gold standard treatment for Parkinsons--wasn't included in the award or even mentioned in the accompanying announcement.</p>
<p>With 33 out of 40 of the 2008 Intel STS finalists working in research labs (and it appears a similar ratio for 2009), and with probably a similar percentage at Intel ISEF, students quickly learn what gives them the greatest chance to win major awards in these events hooking up with a research lab. </p>
<p>Intel STS and Intel ISEF are not just competitions among extremely bright students, but instead are for the most part research lab vs. research lab competitions with an extremely bright student as a spokesperson for the research lab and the lab project they were given to do. There are exceptions some students do all their project work without help, and it appears that some of the students who work at research labs may also have extended their project far beyond expectations. </p>
<p>However, for many of the research lab projects, if you look up information about the student and their project, you find that their project is almost exactly the same as one of the projects the lab has either already published, or is just a very slight variation from something the lab is working on. In numerous projects a parent or other close relative just happens to also specialize in exactly the same area in which the student has their project. Ive noticed some entries where exactly the same title is on a students project as is found on a published paper of the lab or relative. These copycat projects appear more in some categories than in others. For example, these kind of projects dont appear as often in the mathematics, computer science, and engineering categories. In talking with various students about their projects, Ill often ask them about what kind of help theyve had on their projects several times Ive had a student neglect to tell me about such things as their mentor just happened to have written their masters thesis or their dissertation on exactly the same topic as the students project. Last year at ISEF one of the top winners had appeared previously as a co-author on a paper with their mentor as a co-author on the same paper, and this paper just happened to be the students project at ISEF. Also, dont count on the judges being able to ferret out where the students work ends and the mentors begins I have strong suspicions that some of the top awards at recent ISEFs were given to students who successfully snookered the judges about how much of the project they created from their own ideas. This also implies that at least some of the research lab directors arent being very accurate in the forms they fill out about what portion of the project was the student responsible for, etc.</p>
<p>With their papers at STS not being allowed to mention their mentors or co-researchers by name, and with a similar prohibition at ISEF on the display board contents, unless the student volunteers information about any help they received, then during the public display the public is given the false impression that the students did this amazing work all by themselves. I realize the intent of this blind rule is so that judges wont be influenced by knowing who the student did their research under. However, it has the effect of the student getting all the credit for the project. I agree with what someone else wrote:
At the very least:
I believe that there should be full disclosure on these projects - that they should be listed as joint projects - with the student's name second, not first - with the mentor, and that there should be an acknowledgement if multi-million dollar lab equipment was used.
The name of the research lab should also be listed.</p>
<p>While team entries arent allowed at STS, they are at ISEF. The team entries compete in a different category than do the individual entries. ISEF correctly recognizes that it is not fair to have teams compete against individuals. It is also not fair for individuals to have to compete against an individual who has a team backing them that is not seen (the research lab cohorts).</p>
<p>I do feel it is unfair in a high school science competition for the projects that have resulted from the research lab internship to be competing against projects that have not had this advantage, especially when the project looks so close to other studies done at the lab. Similarly, I feel it is not fair to compare projects where the mentor was a specialist with a Masters or a Doctorate degree in the field in which the student is entering the project against projects with the high school science teacher or the parents as the mentor. </p>
<p>When I brought this topic up at last years Intel ISEF in Atlanta, that ISEF had become a contest between research labs, I was told by someone on the Society for Science and the Public that the judges would be able to tell if the student had really come up with the idea for the project and then had done the work themselves. </p>
<p>I also notice on the Intel ISEF Judging Criteria that up to 30 points are allowed for Creative Ability. I wonder how any of these projects associated with the research labs demonstrate creativity when it appears that many of them are provided with a project at the research lab, and then are helped as needed.</p>
<p>But I think that many students, teachers, lab researchers, and others associated with STS and ISEF dont see anything wrong with this. In fact, it is being encouraged. One official was quoted in one article the bar is being raised for entry into STS and ISEF by the schools in one area that are employing a scientific research specialist to help the students in their school do the science fair projects. I also saw an article where the chairman of Intel praised these mentors and lab researchers for helping the science students on their projects and called for more of this. Students at these schools might feel that just because another student entering a science competition did not use a mentor or a research lab that it is not their fault and they shouldnt be penalized. All of these points need to be considered. </p>
<p>But is it a fair playing field when some students that happen to be in certain school districts have these research lab opportunities available to them, while other students, through no fault of their own, live in area of the country that does not have any research lab internship opportunities or that only have contact with a mentor by phone or e-mail. Sure, some research lab internships are over the summer and perhaps cover some of the students expenses. But sometimes due to various circumstances the student cant attend, and this is not really an option for them. Instead of this being a level playing field, I would call some of these programs affirmative action for the rich. For example, in an article on one school, they mention that the school is located in the 8th richest county in the U.S.A.</p>
<p>I realize that these categorization only applies to some of the students who work in labs, and that there are more students working in the research labs who are truly creative and produce truly outstanding projects. And all of the students are extremely bright</p>
<p>I suggest that until the playing field does become level, until there is an opportunity for every student who wants to do scientific research at a research lab or under direction of a professional scientist, mathematician, or engineer for a science contest while in high school and who meets whatever application standards are required by the research lab, that steps need to be taken by Society for Science & Public to make sure that both the students using these research labs & mentors and the students who do not have that opportunity are both treated fairly. There are some suggestions below that I would recommend for doing this:</p>
<p>1) For both Intel ISEF and Intel STS determine what percentage of entries overall (for STS) or by category (for ISEF) are from students who based their project either on work they did in a research lab or work that was directed by a person who had either a Masters or doctorate degree in the same field as the students project was in and also determine the percentage of students who only had help from their parents, their high school science teacher, or any other person where none of these people had either a Masters or doctorate degree in the field being studied.</p>
<p>Then after determining these percentages, give out the awards in the same proportion. For example, if 33% of the entries in ISEFs Mathematics category came from people who did not work in a research lab or with a mentor who was a professional mathematician, then if there were three 2nd place awards to give out in mathematics you would give two 2nd place awards to the students who used a research lab or a professional mentor and one 2nd place award to a student who did not use a professional lab or mentor. </p>
<p>For ISEF you could also just have three categories of entries 1) team 2) individual with research lab or professional mentor, and 3) non-research lab individuals.</p>
<p>For the STS, you may want to base the percentages of research lab or professional mentor/non-research lab students who are named semi-finalists and finalists on the ratio of entries received from Research lab/non-research lab entrants. Then, for the top 10 finalists awards, use the same ratio again.</p>
<p>The simplicity of this approach seems to me to be a very appealing solution to this problem. This solution also doesnt lock you in forever to a fixed quota. Instead, if the number of students making it to ISEF or STS who based their project on research lab experience rises, then the allocation of awards for non-research lab based students would simply go down. So, this allows the bar to be raised, but provides a more just system of rewards at these events. When I broached the topic of the research lab students winning almost all the awards, one person from Wyoming spoke up and said they had been bringing students to ISEF for over 10 years, and their students had not won a single award.</p>
<p>2) If suggestion #1 is not adopted, then adjust the method of computing the scores for students to provide an extra handicap score that is added to the scores of the non-research lab students</p>
<p>You could figure out how big the handicap should be by figuring up the mean score of all non-research lab students in one year and subtracting that mean from the man score of all research lab students. With this handicap system in place, students could still work in a research lab without being penalized, but students who did not use a research lab would have a fighting chance of winning an award.</p>
<p>3) Have Intel or Society for Science set up a nationwide system of research opportunities and research scientists who are willing to provide mentoring and an internship to students who meet the programs qualifications for participating. </p>
<p>In addition, several research scientists could be assigned to each state, and could travel around to the various schools in their area to provide assistance and oversight to the students who want to do scientific research, or perhaps teach a regularly scheduled class at various schools on scientific research.</p>
<p>4) At the ISEF meeting I mentioned, there were some comments about how the logistics of running separate award systems would be difficult. I dont see that it is a problem if ISEF can handle team contestants, they should be able to handle this percentage-based award system.</p>
<p>5) If the percentage allocation of rewards is not implemented, then serious consideration should be given to requiring that the research conducted by a student working in a research lab or under the supervision of a mentor with a Masters or Doctorate be done in some other field than the specialty of the research lab or the degreed mentor. The idea behind this is that it would remove entirely the chance that the student is just copying the research in the lab and not doing the project on their own. The research advisor should be able to give overall guidance to such a student in some other area than the one the researcher has a specialty in, but it would almost necessitate that the student play a very active role in their project. The student should still be able to participate with the labs on-going research, but this makes sure the student is not just repackaging the labs work as their own.</p>
<p>Even if nothing is done regarding the awards being given out in proportion to the entries from research lab students and non-research lab students, I have some other suggestions for improvement, and they are given below:</p>
<ol>
<li> All student research reports, both at STS and ISEF, should be checked for plagiarism including having them run through some automatic plagiarism checking software, especially making sure to compare to other papers from the lab.</li>
<li> The research scientist in charge of the research lab should be required to submit to the Society for Science all published papers that have been done at the lab in any area that is related to the students project. The researcher should also be required to identify which of the published research papers from the lab is the closest in content to the students research paper. </li>
<li> For ISEF, both the students research paper and any published papers from the research lab should be provided before the ISEF meeting to the judges in the category the student entered in to give the judges more time to review the material.</li>
<li> You should not have the students names listed on the research paper for the STS. Having the name listed opens the door for those judges who may want to modify their scoring either favorably or unfavorably because of some knowledge about the student.</li>
<li> Anyone that provided help during the project should have their names listed on the STS research paper and at the display booth at ISEF. The argument Ive heard as to why this is not done now is that it prevents the judges from being swayed one way or another just based on the reputation of the researcher. What I see happening at ISEF, though, is that by prohibiting other names in the display, the person viewing the project is given the erroneous impression that the student did all this work on their own. </li>
<li>
. There is no audit trail on the judging at ISEF or STS (at least none that I have ever seen that are made available to the public). Having no audit trail, anything can be done to the calculations. At a minimum, copies of the score sheets of the judges (perhaps with the names of the judges and the names of the students removed) should be made available. The computer program that is used to make the calculations should also be made available, so that any interested party can verify for themselves that there was nothing fishy.</li>
</ol>
<p>DEET, may I ask how you came up with 33 STS finalists who worked in labs last year? That information is not provided in any publicly available source that I've seen. I don't think the number is that far off, frankly, but I am curious to know how you got the figure.</p>
<p>I cannot offer comments on ISEF, but for STS, students and mentors are required to disclose involvement in projects. The use of labs and mentors is not hidden. While it is not required to be "front and center" on the public display boards, the judges are fully aware of mentor/lab involvement and there is no intent to deceive the public about outside involvement. STS encourages students to work in labs and in research programs, and lists such programs on their website. Science</a> Training Programs</p>
<p>ALL entrants were required to fill out the following information (in 2009...similar to info. required in previous years), which is part of their STS dossier:</p>
<p>"If you did your research in a scientist's laboratory and based your Intel STS entry on that research, you must have that scientist complete....the Supervising Scientist Form, ......</p>
<p>How did you get the idea for your research?</p>
<p>Where was the research done and who supervised your research?
Please give names, titles, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of these key people.</p>
<p>What was the duration of your research? Please explain the duration and intensity of your research for this entry.</p>
<p>What help have you received in doing your research? Please explain who helped you and what help each gave. (Be sure to include aid received in equipment, in materials, in ideas, in methodology, etc.)"</p>
<p>The supervising scientist form asks the following:
"1. How did the student get the idea for his/her project? Was the project assigned, was it picked from a list of possible research topics, did it come out of a discussion with
a scientist, did it arise from some work in which the student was engaged or did the student suggest it?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Did the student work on the project as part of a team or a group? If so, what was the size of the team, what was the composition of the team (students, group of adult researchers, etc.) and what was the student's role?</p></li>
<li><p>How independently did the student work on the project?
What parts did the student do on his/her own, and on which parts did he/she receive help (in the experimental design, choice of techniques, use of special instruments or equipment, construction of equipment, gathering data, arriving at
conclusions, etc.)?</p></li>
<li><p>What did the student do that showed creativity and ingenuity? Can you cite examples of the student’s contribution in their current work (and future promise)? If so, were they creative in terms of science, or most importantly, creative for a high school student? Was it in experimental design, construction or use of equipment, evaluation of data, etc.?</p></li>
<li><p>What was the duration and intensity of the student’s research program at your institution? Number of weeks, full-time vs. part-time, resident vs. non-resident, etc."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>As has been noted in other threads where this issue has been brought up....most scientists work with mentors and other scientists in labs. It's part of the scientific process. Very few are hermits working by themselves. Why should it be any different for the winners of Intel/STS? </p>
<p>And it shouldn't be a surprise that colleges....especially professors at colleges....are attracted to applicants who have this kind of experience.</p>
<p>DEET, may I ask how you came up with 33 STS finalists who worked in labs last year? That information is not provided in any publicly available source that I've seen. I don't think the number is that far off, frankly, but I am curious to know how you got the figure.</p>
<p>Counting Down the 33 STS finalists working in labs figure came from a quote from the director of science education programs for the Society for Science and the Public that was in a New York Times article by Amanda Fairbanks that appeared on January 31, 2008.</p>
<p>2boysima wrote:</p>
<p>As has been noted in other threads where this issue has been brought up....most scientists work with mentors and other scientists in labs. It's part of the scientific process. Very few are hermits working by themselves. Why should it be any different for the winners of Intel/STS? </p>
<p>And it shouldn't be a surprise that colleges....especially professors at colleges....are attracted to applicants who have this kind of experience.</p>
<p>I was not referring to hermits working by themselves. For a lot of kids who enter ISEF, the only mentor they have available is their high school science teacher. While there are many talented high school science teachers, they just are not able to give the same kind of advantage to their student as a student working under a professional scientist at a research lab can provide.</p>
<p>To illustrate the results of this difference in resources available to the students, just look at last years ISEF grand award results for a few states
Number of Projects- Grand Prize winners- % winning - State
65 - 36 55% - New York
8 0 Wyoming
28 6 Utah
13 1 South Dakota
16 1 North Dakota
65 8 12% Wyoming Utah South Dakota North Dakota combined</p>
<p>Unless students from Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota are just naturally not as smart as those from New York, something else must be at play here. Could it be that the students from these areas dont have equal access to professional scientists as mentors and dont have research lab opportunities? Is it fair that they should compete with no accounting for the differences in resources available to them?</p>
<p>In 2006, the Grand Prize winner for STS was from Utah.</p>
<p>Many of the math and social science projects do not require in-person access to a lab or even in-person access to a mentor. For a science project requiring a lab, ease of access may vary, but equal access exists for all students.</p>
<p>If a student wanted to do a project in fashion design....and they lived in South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming or Utah....the ease of their access to fashion resources and mentors would be different from someone who lives in Manhattan or LA....but they could still enter a competition and win it.</p>