<p>It would be nice to see that scholarship Mr. Payne! But, I am reminded of the significant cuts in research funding that most labs have suffered under the current administration. Very accomplished scientists and researchers have had to pull up stakes due to loss of funding in the past several years and many have also had to go begging for research money. A friend's husband is an MIT Ph.D. candidate and he has had to fly around the country seeking funding to finish his work. If we are going to train them, we need to give them funding to do research as well!</p>
<p>Sure, research can become just as common as volunteering. But think about it, there will still be those kids who are the cream of the crop when it comes to research just like when it comes to those international olympiads. There's enough distinction in research and volunteering where if one kid is about to cure AIDS and another kid is just playing around with a baking soda volcano, the kid curing AIDS will obviously be recruited more heavily. So I don't think that more kids doing research really makes it less impressive because there's always that distinction factor. Plus there's not enough lab space for a bunch more kids in the world to get access to one where they can do original research. Case in point - Cure AIDS!</p>
<p>It's possible that science fairs can save science. Since I started participating in science fairs, I can't count the number of letters government officials have send me explaining why science fairs are so important. But I think there's a difference between "science fairs" and "research". Research is just work you do under someone's close supervision that makes no real contribution to anything, and in my opinion it's not much of an experience. Science fairs allow students to come up with their own ideas and explore them themselves. They also present the projects to important people, and there are prize money and scholarships involved. There's plenty of incentive, but it's really up to individual students to make something of it.</p>
<p>Personally, I think science fairs usually have just too much involvement from parents. They almost drive away other kids from pursuing science. At the schools my kids attended, the science fairs were run by a group of engineer/scientist type dads and guess whose kids always won? Science started to be really fun for my oldest when she got to high school and finally had a science teacher with actual science knowledge. The so-called science teachers in middle school were just incredibly inept.</p>
<p>^It is true that many science fairs work like this. I was advanced to the next round of competition at one fair solely because I knew several people on the board and I had participated the year before. It's still all about connections.</p>
<p>Fair point about the teachers. I am going into junior year and I can still count the number of competent science teachers I've had on one hand. When you consider that, it's no wonder that we lag behind other nations in scientific progress right now. Any solutions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I think there's a difference between "science fairs" and "research". Research is just work you do under someone's close supervision that makes no real contribution to anything, and in my opinion it's not much of an experience. Science fairs allow students to come up with their own ideas and explore them themselves. They also present the projects to important people, and there are prize money and scholarships involved.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you have the wrong idea about research. You don't enter a Science Fair to come up with new ideas and to explore yourself, you enter a Science Fair because you have already done research (come up with an idea that may not be entirely your own and you have already explored yourself). </p>
<p>It doesn't always have to be done under close supervision either. What about the kid who builds some reactor and tinkers with it in his backyard because of the cool ideas the kid got from looking at past literature and wanted to build upon it? There definitely does not have to be close supervision on his part if he has the drive to do it on his own. </p>
<p>And even if you work in the lab, sure there will be kids who are closely supervised and don't contribute anything original, but there are those out there who find something interesting and take off like the wind with that specific portion of the project. They'll still get taught by their mentor on the basics, but they are the ones who make the key discoveries. It's possible, just look at the Siemens and ISEF winners. </p>
<p>As far as not making any real contributions? You can do research and publish into journals! You're helping contribute to an already existing body of knowledge, how is that not a real contribution? </p>
<p>Research can be entered into Science Fairs, but that doesn't mean the research contributes much through the fair. It's getting your work out there to the rest of the scientists so they can study what you've done and build upon it that is great. Research --> Publications (I'd say that is real contribution without having to enter a Science Fair). Granted not everyone can do it when they are 16 or 17 years old, but there are those who can and by golly they are saving American science too.</p>
<p>Does American science need to be saved? Have you HEARD about the high dropout rates of graduate students? Have you HEARD about the high numbers of grad students who do not get into tenure-track positions?</p>
<p>Maybe it's lack of tenure-track and research positions that's hurting American science more so than the "lack of scientific aptitude."</p>
<p>After all - most grad students DO come into grad school expecting to go into academia or research. Grad school is NOT a wise career move UNLESS you want to get into academic research. Many of those who drop out of the ivory tower ultimately end up overqualified for their occupations</p>
<p>Of course, there IS research outside of the tenure-track, especially in private companies. But some fields don't have such research.</p>
<p>Look at <a href="http://www.donbarry.org/%7Edon/jobmarket.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.donbarry.org/~don/jobmarket.html</a>, for example
[quote]
The Reality of the Job Search
Research faculty positions routinely receive 200+ applications. Yet only 20 or so of these open per given year. Over 120 students now receive Ph.D. degrees annually in this country. In addition, the last decade has (as will likely the next) seen an exodus of top-quality, senior researchers from eastern-bloc countries vying for all positions here. The numbers are clear: it is impossible for more than 20% of currently graduating Ph.D.s to find long-term employment in their field, and much of that will go to graduates of the "prestige" institutions. More than half will eventually leave their field entirely, the others will find teaching positions, or a succession of low-paid, low-security adjunct or postdoctoral roles. Some have been playing this soft-money game for 25 years or more.</p>
<p>The nature of the field changes qualitatively with this oversupply. Candidates who would once have transitioned directly from graduate school to secure faculty appointments now find that they must endure a number of postdoctoral relocations, assuming they can find them. Tenure itself is now harder to obtain, often requiring 7 years instead of 5 or 3. Job security may not come until one reaches the mid 40s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This brings us back to federal funding as university positions are created by research funding. BTW, I am willing to share welfare funding with research grants but not happy about giving it all to Iraq war expenses.</p>
<p>I do not know of a student at our high school who participated in a science fair or other science/math competition. We were just clueless about these possibilites and clearly out science teachers are not invested in ECs in this area. </p>
<p>If anyone is familiar with basic research funding (thinking NIH, etc) he/she knows that high school kids would have tremendous difficulty getting a significant position on a research team, never mind actually getting funded for original research. Most big money goes to solidly established research programs and there is very little money out there for young/new investigators that doesn't require some oversight from previously published researchers. I have attended workshops re: federal grants and how to get funded but was discouraged by the expectations for credentials (meaning prior research) and other expectations. I am amazed that high school students gain access to funded research programs. And, I think original research today most likely requires tremendous insight into the complexities of the issue being researched (unusual in high school) AND access to equipment, mentors, etc.. What kinds of significant, publishable research can still be done in the backyard? How do high school students gain access to these centers without having extremely unusual credentials or opportunity via parents, relatives, teachers, etc?</p>
<p>At young ages, I think it is more important for kids to be focusing on basic fundamentals of science than advanced research. They should be really learning about things a lot less sophisticated but in greater depth. That will result in greater creativity later on in life. Lets not forget that many great scientific innovators in the American tradition weren't tremendously advanced in school. Some were even poor students. They should be learning about the abstract principles that govern life much more so that they have greater creativity later on in life. Such specific research at high school age--no matter how knowledgeable a student is, will cause tunnel vision. A lot of great American innovations did not come from exceptionally prolific students. People always need to have purpose and grounding for putting so much effort into such a precise medium like getting all As and 5s in 7 AP classes. </p>
<p>As for the science gap, keep in mind that a lot of their science surplus comes from the fact that they have so many more people. I think the US is fine as long as we make the country more conducive to science. Take Germany, small in comparison to America. Germany was the science power until the Nazi regime made legitimate research very difficult and they tried to kill all their "Jewish" scientists.</p>
<p>Plus, a lot of China and India's engineers and researchers aren't that skilled. </p>
<p>As long as we control nanotech, we will be fine. Nanotech will ultimately in the next 30 years make many factories completely automated as much as chemical plants. That is where we need research.</p>
<p>Mankind's greatest defeat is self-arrogance.</p>
<p>Is this always true in all the fields ? In sport, In music, In arts, you have parents are coach, former player, you have a better chance than anyone to make the team. In Chinesem we say that there are a lot of good horses. But you need to have people who recongnize the potential of the horse to make it stand out. The problem we have is that the high school science teachers are overwork, less compensated to motivate enough to help the student excel in science competition or research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does American science need to be saved? Have you HEARD about the high dropout rates of graduate students? Have you HEARD about the high numbers of grad students who do not get into tenure-track positions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're questioning the lack of American scientists being churned out compared to other countries. Sure there might not be high dropout rates, but you see that there is a decline in the amount of people going into science too. It's a matter of can Americans continue on this road and still compete? Science isn't a field for the weak. It takes dedication, drive, and motivation to sit still and focus on trying to answer that question that has been driving your brain crazy for years. </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/02/zimmer%5B/url%5D">http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/02/zimmer</a>
[quote]
The main problem is that too few Americans are enrolling in these programs. Although the number of students enrolled in science and engineering graduate programs in the United States has increased by 25 percent from 1994 to 2001, the number of U.S. citizens enrolled in these programs has declined by 10 percent during that period. Contrast this with India, Japan, China and South Korea, where the number of bachelor’s degrees in the sciences has doubled and the number of engineering bachelor’s degrees has quadrupled since 1975.</li>
</ul>
<p>In the United States, 17 percent of all bachelor’s degrees are awarded in the sciences and engineering, while in China, 52 percent of four-year degrees focus on STEM areas. This trend is just as obvious in graduate programs: U.S. graduate degrees in the sciences make up only about 13 percent of graduate degrees awarded in this country. In Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland over 40 percent of the graduate degrees are awarded in science.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And lets face it, science just isn't considered "cool" or "popular" to students these days. There's so many other distractions that we have that a lot of students would rather focus their time and energy on those things. So yes, American science has to be saved!</p>
<p>-<a href="http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/02/zimmer">http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/07/02/zimmer</a>
[quote]
The blame for science's drop in popularity, according to Zimmer, can be squarely placed on a culture that does not respect the "authority and autonomy of science." Creationism and other "pseudosciences" are undermining the institution as a whole, and Americans just don't seem to care. "There are no modern Einsteins," Zimmer points out, "gracing the cover of Rolling Stone."</p>
<p>That may be because we're too distracted to pay attention to science. So says James Watson, who helped discover the double helix, in a panel of "celebrity scientists" hosted by the Observer. Watson questions whether he would have been able to make his famous scientific breakthroughs with all the infotainment diversions beguiling students today. "It may be that entertainment culture now is so engaging that it keeps people satisfied," said Watson. "We didn't have that."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
What kinds of significant, publishable research can still be done in the backyard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't saying that the backyard research will be significant, only demonstrating that research does not have to take place under close supervision. But the student who does this backyard type research at a young age will be the one who can be driven enough to study more advanced topics in-depth to gain the credentials to get into some highly funded research program. Look at the iGEM program, there are HIGH SCHOOL students working on problems in synthetic biology. Some of these students never did formal research in their lives (firsthand knowledge), but they were the ones who would tinker with computers when they were at a young age and question why a microprocessor worked like it did or something of that nature. That and the dedication to self-teach themselves advanced material to proceed in such a field is really all that is needed sometimes to show that you are "qualified" to make a contribution. No one expects a high school student to know how to completely understand Maxwell's equations, but they do expect some creativity and ingenuity. That is how these kids can get access to such programs without having "super stellar IMO winning medal status" credentials.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At young ages, I think it is more important for kids to be focusing on basic fundamentals of science than advanced research. They should be really learning about things a lot less sophisticated but in greater depth. That will result in greater creativity later on in life. Lets not forget that many great scientific innovators in the American tradition weren't tremendously advanced in school. Some were even poor students. They should be learning about the abstract principles that govern life much more so that they have greater creativity later on in life. Such specific research at high school age--no matter how knowledgeable a student is, will cause tunnel vision. A lot of great American innovations did not come from exceptionally prolific students. People always need to have purpose and grounding for putting so much effort into such a precise medium like getting all As and 5s in 7 AP classes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I strongly agree with this. The fundamentals are essential to science, but how about those few kids who do master the fundamentals at a young age. Maybe they know what they want to do (regardless of tunnel vision). Not everyone wants to go along and be well-rounded, there's students who would rather focus on just science and they'll make it whatever way they will through their other courses. The extra tinkering, the ability to explore through actual research also leads to creativity. We can't just stifle creativity by only focusing on the fundamentals. Look at a lot of the great works that are published by scientists in their primes. A lot of them are rather young, maybe 25 or 26 years old. By the time a student is 16 or 17, that allows for that 10 year time period for them to really nail it on the head if they are to do something big. That is the time when they should have the chance to do some research in addition to mastering the fundamentals. So I think there should be a combo of both. </p>
<p>And as for nanotech, that is certainly a field for research...but it definitely isn't the only one. We've got bioinformatics, syn bio, AI and the works ahead of us too. Next 20 years or so, those things will be the hottest areas out there and America isn't on top of all of them.</p>
<p>Well, honestly, I think some of the responders to that article (thanks for posting!) are missing something. We have more qualified U.S. applicants to the most prestigious or desired schools (MIT e.g.) than the schools choose to admit. At some of these schools the international students are significant percentages of accepted students. I don't think students aren't interested - I think they are discouraged. I think the current admissions "culture" is also discouraging to high school students who want to pursue a truly scientific career in addition to the mentioned lack of salary! Students learn in 9th grade that they have to have a college "resume" - they may be interested in science but feel they should put their limited time into sports, or whatever else is going to make them look like someone who will "contribute" to the social aspects of the college community. Certainly, as I have said, the teachers in our school did nothing for science ECs and only math team for math (at the same time as sports) and kids take that lack of interest and opportunity to mean it is not worthy as well. Also, I agree that elem teachers and middle school teachers often do not have enough math and science background to effectively teach the basics never mind instill a curiosity and love for science. OTOH, a history teacher in 5th grade told me the curriculum only required that she teach the achievements of one explorer, not all or most of them. So, who is setting the curriculum standards for the teachers? I know some are set to ensure that the state test can be passed by most students and therefore demonstrate that the teachers are effective. Aye! One more thought - the culture in general. With the cost of tuition and the emphasis on having it all - the flow has definitely been to Goldman Sachs and other lucrative types of jobs, I think.</p>
<p>My apologies, the second link should be
- <a href="http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_307/news/12653-1.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2007_307/news/12653-1.html</a></p>
<p>Go China......</p>
<p>
[quote]
What kinds of significant, publishable research can still be done in the backyard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huge loads of stuff. Especially things dealing with math and computer science. These can further be applied to the sciences, through things like analysis, simulation, etc.</p>
<p>The problem with hoping for summer research programs, or even one year research programs that produce students doing good work is that that's not how it works. It takes years upon years upon years to build the background knowledge and skills that serve as a foundation for doing work. The kids who place at the top of competitions like Siemens/ISEF/STS who did work in the area of theoretical (or experimental if done without heavily funded big shot professors) did not start working when they were 16. They started when they were 11 or 12 years old, before they knew what research meant. </p>
<p>Sure you can say that I could pickup an algorithms/data structures book and start doing some CS research. But how will I know how to write efficient code? How will I have developed a "feel" for what's possible, what's not, and implement things from theory into solid code? How will I learn the intricacies of the debugger, profiler, compiler. Often the "hobby projects" that you hear kids dinkering on about are teaching skills that can't be taught in a high pressure university setting.</p>
<p>The ability to concentrate for years on small details and private projects with seemingly no reward other than personal satisfaction is a greater gift than the salaries offered by any investment firm.</p>
<p>As a high school student involved in research (actually, I'm at the lab now, on my lunch break) I think I've got some basis on which to offer my opinion.</p>
<p>High school research is difficult. Up until your junior year, most scientists won't even take you seriously because you HAVEN'T LEARNED BASIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS!!!!! The reality is that to do anything significant scientifically, you have to have a good understanding of the basic principles, which most freshmen/sophomores/juniors simply don't have. Also, 'original research' doesn't even really exist at the high school level, except in a few rare cases. Most high school researchers work under the eye of a supervising scientist who gives them a project or a portion of a project and then helps them with most of it. Which is perfectly reasonable - there is a teenager using THEIR equipment, THEIR space, and working on THEIR data! But, as other people have said, it is very difficult to imagine that anything significant (in the context of today's high school researchers) can be produced in the garage setting. </p>
<p>And as for the number of scientists produced in the United States, I think a good place to start would be with girls. A lot of girls shy away from science and math at a young age, for whatever reason. If there were a way to convince girls to stick with science and math, that could potentially increase the number of science and engineering students in the U.S. overall. After all, I think the percent of women in American engineering schools is somewhere in the low teens, isn't it? </p>
<p>(and even if George Hotz is a genius, he was lazy and to be honest a complete jerk about his rejections, which he deserved.)</p>
<p>My son's experience in research has been quite different than what some of you are discussing. He located a mentor on his own (prepared a resume, wrote letters, interviewed), who gave him lots of scholarly articles to read in the general field. He then had to present these articles to the prof as a means of demonstrating his understanding of the topic (including explaining mathematical proofs). Once he had the foundations under his belt, he and his mentor began discussing the "open questions" in his field. My son then chose one and began pursuing it. </p>
<p>The cool part is that he works from home most of the time, and goes in periodically to discuss his findings from his prof. He runs into dead ends regularly, and spends hours daydreaming -- and sometimes, with luck, he comes out of it at the end with something interesting. It truly is his original work, and not a project the prof already had going. The prof is a sounding board and resource. </p>
<p>But DS is doing it because it's interesting to him, not for the awards, and his ability to do it is the result of many years of interest in his fields, dating back to when he did science fair projects in middle school -- not for the sake of doing a project, but to learn a new programming language or try out an idea. It was his way of getting what his teachers couldn't give him. I won't deny he'd find it pretty awesome to get some external recognition, but it's mostly the intellectual curiosity that drives him.</p>
<p>Among the kids we know who are truly into research, the passion has been there since they were kids, and they did it as a means to get the intellectual challenge they couldn't get at school. They sought out people who could help them learn more, and the "cost" was time and transportation to a lab/local college.</p>
<p>Differential has it right here.</p>