<p>I'm set to start a research project at a local lab next month, but every idea I have has already been done by someone else! I want to enter my work into competitions like Intel ISEF, ISTS, and Siemens, and I assume that novelty is a pretty basic requirement.</p>
<p>However, I took a look at the ISEF 2012 winner (Jack Andraka) and his "novel" idea was basically ripped off from a 2008 paper. So, my question is, how much does novelty matter, in terms of research and science fairs? I really want to do something novel and creative, but every idea I have has already been done. I thought my last idea was pretty good, and I ran with it; I even got a research proposal typed up. Today, however, I saw a paper that basically used the exact same methodology.</p>
<p>I’ve done three years of science fair, and have made it to the state level twice. (my city is home to the greatest hospital and I don’t have doctor-parents, so yeah… inter/nationals seems unlikely), I’ve learned two major things; judges aren’t always up-to-date on current research and the presentation is often times more important than the content. You can interpret that however you want :D.
(BTW I have the exact same problem… Someone has done like all my ideas!)</p>
<p>And one thing I don’t get, Andraka won the ENTIRE thing. As in, even at the national level, he got away with plagiarism. So, do the judges care about novelty, or the fact that you’re actually doing research?</p>
<p>It was for our state-sponsored science fair, which feeds into ISEF.
Are you sure his work was exactly the same? He may have done some sort of extension onto the original’s work. I believe ISEF finalists are screen for plagiarism (don’t know for sure). It’s also likely he worked with the original researcher, as mentorships are very common/essential to make it to ISEF.
As long as you’re doing the research and it’s valid, it boils down to the essential fundamentals of your project. Novelty, IMHO, is not one of the fundamentals (sucks, right?).</p>
<p>Basically, they love cancer and things that save the environment. End of story.
That’s the main message I’ve taken away from the people who’ve won the top competitions. </p>
<p>It sucks, because there are a LOT of interesting projects out there that DON’T fall under these fields, and which don’t get recognition. Even though I didn’t compete in Intel STS last year since I wasn’t a senior, I was butthurt at the first place winner. I felt that the 2nd or 3rd place winners’ projects were more interesting. </p>
<p>For your research, it seems like you have the exact procedure as someone else, but is it really the same thing? Like there can be multiple things that use the same protocol, but find different things out. </p>
<p>You could also do some of the things under “future work”, but a risk with this is that the researchers may be attempting to publish something as an extension of the original work.</p>
<p>DK, yeah, exact same. The 2008 paper used carbon nanotubes and observed changes in conductivity to detect breast cancer; he used carbon nanotubes and observed changes in conductivity to detect pancreatic cancer. Same exact setup; he just changed one antibody.</p>
<p>My project was related to diagnostics, but now, I’m thinking of diabetes. Would that qualify as “interesting” or something that they would “love”?</p>
<p>I didn’t even understand the last ISTS. I mean, the winner’s project was good, but I think some of the other projects were more impactful than algae biofuels. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>The other person basically used the same procedure to come up with the same result.</p>
<p>Technically, if you change even just one antibody, it’s different. Unfortunately. </p>
<p>Eh, idk. The year of the swine flu, I did a project on it, and I thought it was good because it would have a widespread impact. Buuuttt they didn’t like it, since they said it wasn’t an experiment. I think that year, it was the year before a bunch of high school students took bioinformatics mainstream (as in finalist stage in STS).</p>
<p>So, it really depends. Personally, I don’t find the draw of cancer, even though I’ve had family who’ve had cancer. Oh god, that made me sound heartless. But seriously, not interested. </p>
<p>The description of the winner’s project in the last STS made it sound dumb. Plus in the interview her answers were dumb. Basically, it said that her project was about growing the optimal bacteria, which didn’t sound so hard. IDK, maybe the article was just really badly written.</p>
<p>From every article about her project I’ve read, she’s essentially used artificial selection, which is a really simple process, to isolate algae that had the most potential for biofuels. Her “research” wasn’t really groundbreaking, but ISTS looks at your potential to be a future scientist rather than just your work, so maybe the fact that she slept on the same cycle as her algae showed dedication? Idk.</p>
<p>No one is expecting you to cure cancer or find a massive breakthrough in a high school research project.
There is an expectation of “novelty” in the sense of not completely replicating an existing experiment, but you seem to have an inflated expectation of how “novel” most scientific research is. Yes, there are major breakthroughs, but most of it is baby steps. You make modifications and improvements to previous experiments. You use existing techniques for new applications. Applying a technique for breast cancer to pancreatic cancer and making the necessary modifications I think is more significant than you are giving him credit for, especially for the high school level.</p>
<p>It’s clear that the only topic that TeamRocketGrunt can do is a cure for cancer that also stops global warming and nuclear disasters. Perhaps, he will then be able to get into his safety school, Yale.</p>