2004's Science Talent Search Winners Are In
Slate is running an article about this year's Science Talent Search (concentrating on things like whether the participants are "weirdos"); there are better descriptions of the top entrants' projects at this results page. Congratulations to the winners!
I won my senior year in high school and now all I do is post on /.
I wonder how many of them had help from their parents...
Now i feel old AND stupid. Thanks a lot you insensitive clod!
One of My friends was an Intel Semi Finalist, He worked on his project for about 6 months. Lucky guy now got into MIT.
"Like any company eager to burnish its brand, Intel had produced a brochure with the finalists' bios and a description of their projects--from Boris Alexeev of Athens, Ga. ("Minimal Deterministic Finite Automata--DFAs--for Testing Divisibility"), to Ning Zhou of Plymouth, Minn. ("Quantitative Trait Loci Modulating Corpus Callosum Size in the Mouse Brain")." Did they supply a dictionary with that brochure, as well?
Oh, that is bloody fucking terrible. This is the worst -- you are the worst scientist I have ever seen. Listen, do the world a favor and keep this... this thing away from us all. Kill yourself. Move far, far away and just hurl yourself off a cliff. Your parents ought to be ashamed of having you. Just... just take this 'cure for cancer' and get the hell out of my studio!
Now, where's the hot scientists?
</British Accent>
That said, looks like some rather spiffy stuff there.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
old Westinghouse science competition years
ago. The one thing that connected all the kids
was their PhD parents. Usually two.
Breeding will out.
-- ac at home (not my real name)
The Slate article is insulting. There is no other way to put it. The starting assumption that these kids would be so-called weirdos is silly, though perhaps unfounded. The stated "corollary" that "The more homegrown a young researcher, the more humdrum (by Intel standards) his or her enterprise--and the more exotic the kids' names, the more esoteric their topics" and the associated analysis of project titles is equally silly. Intel project titles are shaped by the conflicting influences of showing scientific merit (thus specific, and probably incomprehensible for people outside of the field of research, titles) versus appealing to a lay audience (such as the author of this article?).
... was on American ingenuity -- useful applications rather than elegant speculations." The story about the first prize winner's project, if anything, could perhaps reflect some politics in Intel's judging. The listed applications for the other projects are just that -- applications. When you do a theoretical project, you're forced into a position of "selling it." People will come up to you and ask you why what you did matters, and for the majority of them it will not suffice to extoll the value of intellectual development for its own sake. Very few STS finalists would be willing to say "this was just interesting theoretical work, with no immediate applications" (even if that is the complete truth). Am I devaluing their work? Absolutely not! I'm currently working on my mathematics degree, and I'm very much leaning towards pure math -- the more theoretical the better. If anything, I'd like to point out the viewpoint that "useful applications" are important is very dangerous. You can't always be looking at the short term, or significant advances won't happen.
;)
The author later implies that these kids "may get short shrift from their popular peers" -- the standard "nerd" with no social skills stereotype. While, without a doubt, some of these kids fall into that mold, it is far from true for some, and in fact most, of them.
Lastly, the conclusion, in addition to perhaps being at odds with the earlier analysis of names, states that "the premium this year
Overall, the Slate article displays a certain viewpoint and tint that I find very distasteful (just look at the cartoon they chose to have accompany the article!).
With that, I'd like to congratulate the current crop of finalists. I hope they enjoy their time in the limelight, so to speak. It should be truly a wonderful experience. I personally know several of them and know that they most definitely deserve it.
Truth-in-commenting Addendum: I say the above as a former STS Top 10 awardee, so I'm not entirely impartial here
... that somebody would give me between 20.000 and 100.000 $ for each theorem I proved. These kids are lucky...
Why the MSN article gets choosed for /., with it's lame analysis of subject titles and physical attributes of the contestants, is beyond me.
I have to say, the work these young students have done is nothing short of amazing. Herbert Hedberg's work on analyzing telomerase inhibitors resulted in a tool that can run the analysis in 10 minutes compared to the standard method which takes 2 days. Imagine the potential impact that can have on the treatment of cancer patients, like his grandmother.
Boris Alexeev's work may yield this guy a visit from the NSA. With minimization of deterministic finite automata you have - as the article points out - a tool to reduce the memory and processing requirements of certain kinds of operations such as speech and optical character recognition - however, the article failed to point out another obvious application - signal processing with tons of applications in video and audio surveillance/recognition.
Ryna Karnik's work applies directly to processor manufacturing - using a focused ion beam instead of photolithorgraphy to etch wafers. I read about a similar technique, but using electron beams in a sub-.03 micron process.
Anyway, I was dumbstruck that these teenagers have produced such groundbreaking, original research. With encouragement and a suitable academic environment, teens can blossom - not just the gifted ones - and do amazing work that belies the stereotyping surrounding their age.
As gifted teens, I remember how few adults took me and my friends seriously, much less listen to our ideas. As a society, American really needs to invest more money, time, and expertise in our educational system to ensure that more of our youth can have futures as bright as these student-researchers.
I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but I have more advanced qualifications and degrees than most people. I have had a reasonably successful career in science, and it is a subject near and dear to my heart.
I will not sit quiet when I see the fundamental principles of science (openness of information, discovery for its own sake, intellectual curiosity) perverted by a rotten American corporation like Intel and foisted on unsuspecting children.
These kids are being taught (a) that science is no good without practical application and (b) that they have to protect their so-called "intellectual property" with patents.
Even if this represents reality in the "New American Century", isn't it a little early to be indoctrinating them into the rat-race?
And my post is not a troll. It is an opinion. A strong one, yes, but sometimes strong opinions are necessary to point out the serious problems with something that otherwise looks about as controversial as flag-waving and apple pie.
I've done a fair bit of moderating on Slashdot, and I think moderation is necessary in order to filter out the crap, but now I see that it is being used to limit freedom of speech when someone presents ideas with which you Yanks are uncomfortable. I'm not going to continue to moderate, because I believe that it is being abused. I had a sense that my post would be modded down, so I thought, "let's try it".
Finally: these are the children of the American Dream. It is a sick dream, and it needs to end. Teaching children to patent their scientific endeavours is an atrocity, and modding me down won't make it otherwise.