The Politically Incorrect Science Fair

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Science fairs have reached new levels of intensity, and students are turning to trendy topics like stem-cell research and intelligent design to get a leg up, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Serene Chen says she might not be at Harvard now were it not for her application essay, which described her fetal-stem-cell research on the characteristics of Down syndrome. "If you say you studied something like 'random molecule,' it's obscure, but when you say 'stem cells,' people really perk up," says Ms. Chen, 20, now a sophomore. ... Of a 2002 project involving marijuana muffins for pain management in Santa Cruz, Calif., Mission Hill Middle School science teacher Sherri Kilkenny says, "It got all this attention, but it was very average at best." '"

Comments

Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start young?

[Shag]

As much as scientists would like to do research that really matters, and accomplishes something important, they (I will not say "we," because although virtually everyone I work with is a scientist, I lack any formal post-high-school training in the sciences) are smart enough to realize that headlines count too.

This isn't to say that scientists go through their entire careers just generating flash and noise - very few do. But a discovery that plays well to the masses, despite being relative "fluff" in terms of scientific value or breaking very little new ground, can raise awareness of one's work, which can make it a lot easier to get funding for the research that does matter.

These enterprising youth are just picking up on this at an early age, and leveraging it in their favour. Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise, but it's interesting to see it having some effect at the beginning.

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[Cheerio Boy]

These enterprising youth are just picking up on this at an early age, and leveraging it in their favour. Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise, but it's interesting to see it having some effect at the beginning.

But they shouldn't have to do this. This isn't something they should need to know to be scientists and researchers. Period.

Science should be about studying things because you want to understand them better or know more about them. Money shouldn't enter into it.

Unfortuantely money seems to be the prime motivator for research lately. This is unfortunate because it will probably cause many many great things about the universe to be missed in favor of what's "popular" at the time.

Two Kinds of Scientists

[eldavojohn]

As much as scientists would like to do research that really matters...

Let's get one thing straight. There are two kinds of scientists. No, not mad and regular but instead pop and real. A pop scientist would be someone like the late Carl Sagan or Brian Greene who publish books, know how to speak to the masses, and are recognized as TV personalities who come on late night and say a few words.

A real scientist is one who actually devotes their life to their work and really doesn't care if it's ever exposed to the masses or brought out into the limelight. Some scientists are a bit of both (like Stephen Hawking). Oddly enough, the pop scientists are often teachers because they love the idea of instilling a copy of themselves into the mainstream. But they also cater to the lowest common denominator, hence their writings to the public.

But a discovery that plays well to the masses, despite being relative "fluff" in terms of scientific value or breaking very little new ground, can raise awareness of one's work, which can make it a lot easier to get funding for the research that does matter.

That's great, let's send these young students the message that science is really trying to get grant money and holding press releases before testing is even done on a drug. In fact, we should have a class for them on how to appeal to the lowest common denominator so that they can get exposure and the papers can run with a story on them.

Buzzword-compliance probably won't get them beyond a certain point career-wise...

On the contrary, buzzword compliance will get them very far in their careers but it won't do anything for their research or findings. Fancy words mean everything to companies and nothing to real scientists.

In closing, a pop scientist craves public attention and recognition. A real scientist craves knowledge and nothing more. Which one of these two are you most like?

Re:Two Kinds of Scientists

[Atraxen]

"Oddly enough, the pop scientists are often teachers because they love the idea of instilling a copy of themselves into the mainstream. But they also cater to the lowest common denominator, hence their writings to the public."

This characterization is altogether too common, and from my point of view, flat-out wrong. Einstein and Feynman both knew how to break down complex and current science in such a way that folks from outside the field were able to understand most (if not always all) of it. Does that make them lesser scientists? And are we really so elitist that we have to call any explanation below the journal article level "LCD"?

In the end, it was the lack of public understanding of hot-button topics such as stem cells and anything with the word "nuclear" (why do you think it's called an MRI at the hospital, not a nuclear MRI which would be more proper) that made the science so hard to sell. It would be an idyllic research world if scientists never had to worry about money - I've been working in basic research for 3 years now on an unfunded project, so I have a full appreciation of how important even a trickle of money can be. If we as scientists were more effective more often at communicating with Joe Sixpack (and please, remove all traces of condesention from your mind's voice when you read that), maybe we wouldn't be complaining so much about his uninformed voting on the matters.

"In closing, a pop scientist craves public attention and recognition. A real scientist craves knowledge and nothing more. Which one of these two are you most like?"

Learning without dissemination isn't science - it's a hobby. But dissemination can funnel into directions other than solely into articles. I agree that peer-review is a critical part of how we do business, and if a researcher goes straight to the New York Times instead of Science, that's a red flag. But what's wrong with books and lectures aimed at the masses? Here in Pittsburgh, the Society for Analytical Chemists of Pittsburgh holds the Faraday memorial lecture every winter aimed at explaining science a wider audience, following in his footsteps. It's unfortunate that so many of these books slide in to the 'Let's Dumb It Down' paradigm, because an effective communicator can simultaneously distill a complex topic down to its essentials while remaining true to the fact that the science contains many nuances.

My $0.02 as a chemist and an educator.

"Science" fair?

[jcr]

Creationism is not a scientific topic. It's nothing more than a big "nu-uh" to the evidence which overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

-jcr

Re:"Science" fair?

[de Selby]

"I have recently come to the conclusion that Creationism is scientific (it's falsifiable and has made predictions) while ID isn't"

I agree. I was arguing that Creation Science can be in principle a real science just a few weeks ago in my philosophy of science class. After all, like you said, it does make falsifiable claims: the earth is young, all life was created at approximately the same time, there was a worldwide flood that killed all but two of most (7 each of some clean) creatures, and so on. Of course, each one of these falsifiable claims has been falsified. But something doesn't have to be true to be scientific. (I admit that it is nit-picking.)

The important difference that keeps Creation Scientists from being real scientists is that science is not just scientific claims, but a scientific process. That claims are falsifiable is only important because these are the claims that the process can use. Creation Science, as it is actually done, is missing the honesty and methodology of science.

In fact, Creation Science is probably the best example of how ad hoc adjustments can be made to save any claim, no matter how consistently and how thoroughly it fails. They actually even explain the lack of evidence for one Biblical miracle with several more non-Biblical ones! The entire enterprise is, admittedly, an exercise in reasoning from a conclusion. As such, while it is a science in principle, it fails to be a science in practice.

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[Shag]

And musicians shouldn't have to know how to do anything but music.
And chefs shouldn't have to know how to do anything but cook.
And geeks shouldn't have to know how to do anything but program.
And athletes shouldn't have to know how to do anything but sports.
And managers shouldn't have to know how to do anything. ;)

Sorry, but "I'm a specialist, so I don't have to know how to market myself" doesn't hold up for a femtosecond. Why do you think so many job postings in the sciences list grant writing ability as desirable? People who can convince others to give them money for something will generally do a lot better than those who can't.

And unfortunately, science isn't like fast food. You don't get out of high school and get a low-paying job working at the drive-thru window of the local laboratory. Unless you've got the chops to work at Bell Labs or somewhere similar, you can't just research whatever you find interesting without having to wonder about where the money's coming from.

It's largely a tradeoff - you can get a nice steady paycheck for researching what the corporate suits want you to research, or you can have a more interesting job that you know up front is only guaranteed for a short period of time, after which it might be renewed "contingent upon continued funding."

We just had a thread on here about NASA budget cuts. One of the areas that's getting cut is astrobiology research. Some of the people I work with have been doing a lot of work in that field, and I've been doing a lot of work with them. (Remember last year's "deep impact" mission? Key members of the astrobiology team for that, basically.) In my case, there are other non-astrobiology researchers that'll pick up any slack in my schedule, but I don't wanna see the astrobiology sorts out panhandling on the corners either. (They're nice folks, and kinda cute for scientists. ;)

It would be really nifty if all the scientists had steady paychecks, and Bush had to hold a bake sale when he wanted to create a new cabinet-level department of the federal government, but oh well. :(

Re:Wait a Cotton Pickin' Minute!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Politically Incorrect" is supposed to imply things that are not liberal-friendly.

No, "Politically Incorrect" is supposed to be something that will get you murdered murdered in politics. It was popularized by some liberal ideas that went against the mainstream, such as refering to a certain minority as "Black" instead of "African American" depite the fact you know damned well his family has lived in Jamaica for 6 generations before immigarating 3 generations ago. Suggesting that an anti-integration warrior would have been a great president in the 1950's would qualify too.

Its pretty easy to argue in today's climate that being pro-gay marriage is "politially incorrect", that calling for an immediate unilateral troop withdrawl is too. Likewise, I'm pretty sure shooting a 78 year old in the face qualifies too.

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[JanneM]

But they shouldn't have to do this. This isn't something they should need to know to be scientists and researchers. Period.

If you are independenty wealthy and are doing science as a hobby, your post is absolutely right.

For the rest of us, doing science does mean getting funding - not only for equipment, travel, conferences and the rest, but also for the rather important, if mundane, reason that it's good to be able to pay for food and rent. Being homeless and begging for food tends to put a crimp in your research, whether you're really interested in your work or not.

But take heart - people are working on what they find interesting and worthwhile. It really is amazing how far you can stretch descriptions of your actual work to make it fit whatever is the flavor of the day. Take just about any two subjects - models of neuarl plasticity in the accessory basal amygdala and feminist influences in nineteenth-century reinterpretations of Chaucer, say - and any good researcher working in either field will be perfectly able to seek money earmarked for the other.

Upside/downside

[No Such Agency]

The main message I got from this article is that some kids are doing INCREDIBLY ADVANCED projects, whatever the subject is.

From my experience in high school, and from working in a research lab for many years... the kids who do these projects usually have CONNECTIONS. They didn't just waltz up to a university researcher with a proposal, and get to work in a "real lab". They probably knew someone who knew someone. They got to do this work not just because they were bright, which I'm positive they are, but because they were able to get a foot in the door. I got expert advice (though no material support) on my flatworm regeneration project in Grade 10... because my mom was in the same local political org as a biology prof.

So the upside of all this is that high school science fairs are being exposed to a much higher quality of project than before. Which is very good - it gives them a better idea what real research is like.

The downside is that Joe(sephine) Blow regular HS student hasn't got a chance of even being noticed with their project that was done without access to a lab, or any funding. And hence... may not bother to do a project at all.

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[Shag]

Oh, I wholeheartedly concur that the situation is not "right." There are plenty of things in this world that aren't. And sure, I'd like to see it improved upon, and will avail myself of any opportunity to improve upon it.

Unfortunately, that includes sucking up^W^Wbeing nice to the right people. ;) The head of a totally-donation-funded entity I help in my spare time just told me yesterday that I'd gotten them an extra EUR 100,000 by spending a couple hours at a reception thrown by a government ministry and putting up some flattering photos from it on a web page. Is this silly? Sure. Am I gonna complain? Hell no. ;)

In general, I just take the view that the scientific stuff I get to do is really cool and fun and interesting... you know, the "childlike awe and curiosity" that pervades people who're really into scientific discovery? I'm just grateful that I get to do it at all, and even more so that I get a little money in the process. :)

Whatever

[mattboy99]

Students have ALWAYS used the latest HOT topic because it's all over the news and teachers want students to pick something. Unfortunately students beat these subjects to death, eventually these will fall by the wayside of war on drugs and abortion like in the 90s.

Re:most won't become scientists

[tuxette]

I think that's really a problem. Good grades aren't good enough, and young people end up wasting their teen years on stuff they hate, just so that they can get into university. What a waste...

Re:Political Correction

[Reality Master 101]

Since when is it a fact that the entire known universe started as an miniscule "cosmic egg" that exploded into everything? That is a theory developed on an interpretation of available facts. Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins.

The difference is that the big bang theory uses mathematical models based on measured observations of reality, and the other uses "there's just gotta be a designer, because I don't understand how it could be any other way, and I'm not interested in learning other ways because it contradicts my faith beliefs."

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[JanneM]

Point. But that doesn't make it right. Science, and indeed any research, should never in my opinion depend on cashflow. As far as I'm concerned it colors the research.

Right? Why? Does not the people with the money have a right to decide what to fund? Or do you suggest any project, whether promising or utterly ridiculous, get funded equally?

And scientists are people. We want money and job security. We want health insurance, we want clothes for our kids, and we want a secure retirement, just like everybody else. If you want science to be some kind of monk-like self-depriving calling rather than a fun, absorbing, fascinating - but still - career, then you're looking at losing well over 99% of all practicioners in the field.

As for stretching your focus to get funding - if you lie to do your job then your job will become a lie.

It's not about lying - I am suggesting no such thing. What I am saying is that there are many ways of approaching any given project, and people will select the approach that lets them do what they want, even if that might not be the best way to actually approach it.

Re:Political Correction

[de Selby]

"Since when is it a fact that the entire known universe started as an miniscule "cosmic egg" that exploded into everything?"

Since the evidence piled up became so overwhelming that it became perverse to believe otherwise. Without a series of incredible--and extremely unlikely--future discoveries bringing doubt upon the theory, belief otherwise must either be dishonest or purely a matter of blind faith taxed to its extreme.

And personally, I find it interesting how William Lane Craig uses the Big Bang in his version of the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.

"Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins."

Except Intelligent Design has more problems than any conventional scientific theory. To be honest, it has been thoroughly disproved several times over. That it hasn't been abandoned is proof that its proponents either aren't open to reason or aren't concerned with truth.

Basically, the challenge it presents is shallow and weak. If Irreducible Complexity were understood as most do (that there is no evolutionary path for something), it's clearly and provably incorrect. Investigation into the evolution of the bacterial flagella, the blood clotting system, the immune system, and Behe's other examples have all filled in the picture on how these things evolved. As Behe saw in the recent trial, much of this has already made it into textbooks.

If it's understood as Behe put it (that there no evolutionary path that always maintains the function we see now), it's true but also irrelevant and not a challenge to evolution. Evolution doesn't require that this happen.

And finally, Dembski's "Explanatory Filter" relies on Behe to throw out evolution as a likely natural cause. One must have already rejected Evolution for it to work. That is without even going into how its nothing more than a mathematic version of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. At it's simplest it's this: Do you know how this thing could come about naturally by law or chance? No? Then it was designed.

"Neither camp can prove their theory to a scientific certainty (as much as either side wants to believe they can)"

Maybe I don't follow this right. Are you squaring Intelligent Design against the Big Bang? As far as I can tell, there is no position or argument in ID that requires anyone to reject the Big Bang.

"but each should be allowed to make their arguments. Let the arguments be tested and challenged in the public sphere, and learn from the debate."

As is happening. Conferences are held, books are written, talks are given, papers are published, websites serve up evidence and arguments... and nobody has ever tried to stop this.

Of course, some want Intelligent Design to be given a free pass to be included in public school classrooms, bypassing the long, hard process everything else is subject to. That's not debate in the public sphere -- that's giving into all demands but requesting negotiations continue. It's absurd!

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[Shag]

If a thousand projects want time on a large-scale particle collider, and there's only room for ten, we have to choose which ten.

Totally. Every facility where I work (except for a tiny 40-year-old one that's used for practice by undergrads) has anywhere from 3 to 15 different projects wanting each available second of time. People have to propose a year ahead. If they get time, then something breaks or conditions aren't good enough for their research, they're SOL and have to propose again in another 6 months.

On the flip side, there are the grizzled old professors who, when conditions aren't absolutely perfect say things like "F--- this, I've taken enough bad data in my career and don't need any more!" and go home. Which is delightful to see, on one hand... but if they do this halfway into 12 hours of allocated time, there are probably people who'd cream their jeans at the mere idea of getting those 6 leftover hours.

Re:Attention-whoring, maybe, but why not start you

[Shag]

It occurs to me that I missed addressing this. And that you are correct. The problem comes when people enter science fields BECAUSE of the money not because they love science.

Enter science fields... because of... the money??!?!

HAhahahahahaa!

That was a good one.

If you're smart enough to work professionally in the sciences, the odds are very good that you could make 2-4 times as much money in some other field. I know I have.

But... I was there "for the money." And I agree with you that's not a good place to be. I'm definitely not in science "for the money."

How to Win a Science Fair

[AngryNick]

As a former science fair winner and judge, this is just another example of a tried and true method of winning your local* science fair (Patent Pending):

1. Depending on the judging pool, pick a topic and problem statement that your mother finds either very interesting or very offensive.
2. Research your topic using Google and believe anything that you see.
3. Develop a hypothesis you know is grossly incorrect yet easily believable by people in your community (Call the White House for suggestions)
4. Do some basic experiments with a questionable methodology.
5. Show your results: Think colorful bar graphs and pie charts. Lots of words make things too complicated.
6. Conclude that your results are history making and will forever change how the World views your topic.

I wish this wasn't mostly true, but most of society favors flamboyance over precision.

*This method has only been validated at the local science fair level. Results at the State level may vary if the project is subjected to a more strenuous and informed judging process.

Re:From someone with first hand experience....

[bmalia]

If you didn't know what a line of code in YOUR code did, then you deserved a low score.

Re:The Simpsons predicted it

[Krakhan]

How the hell is this off-topics mods?

One Kind of Scientist

[Mutatis Mutandis]

This view of the scientist as a kind of secular monk, dedicated to his research and nothing else, doesn't work very well in practice. Speaking as a scientist and a workaholic, I am strongly inclined to say that it is nonsense.

The reality is that most science needs resources, i.e. money, space, and equipment. To get that, a scientist needs to be able to prepare his case and defend it; nobody is going to give him or her these without a good reason. After all, there are other people asking for the money as well. Running a laboratory takes scientific as well as communicative ability, and at least some talent for administration as well.

Doing good science often requires the ability to communicate with people outside your own field; an astronomer might really, really need the ability have a meaningful conversation with a biologist or an engineer.

This is pretty much the same for scientists in an academic or an industrial environment. The industrial R&D environment generally has more money and (therefore) less backbiting, but also less scientific freedom.

Besides, many scientists want something to be done with their research. What is the point of you knowing, if everybody else remains ignorant, and worse, makes decisions based on flawed assumptions? Scientists want their publications, read, cited, and used. For this to be the case, the research has to be relevant, and it has to be made understandable. Fame is a sign of success -- it means that people know your work; and the probable (but not necessary) implication of that is that it was correct and useful.

Besides, if you want to be rich, you should study law or economics, not science. What scientists hope to get from their careers is a claim to immortal fame, however modest. And perhaps the rather exaggerated respect many people show to someone with a scientific degree.

That said, I hope that the kids who go to science fairs with stem cell research projects do not pick up a bad habit. When scientific subjects really become fashionable, that often means that --- in a scientific sense --- it is too late to jump on the bandwaggon. Nobody wants to read a "me too!" paper. The science that makes good careers is the kind of science most people outside an university have not yet heard of.

SETI and ID compared

[Tablizer]

How is Intelligent Design "politically incorrect"? It's fake science,

That is not really true. One can search for "intelligent" patterns in DNA/RNA similar to SETI looking for intelligent signals.

Now, some SETI fans will tell you that it is the nature of the signal, not the content that sets it apart, but with all the false positives of the past, such as pulsar patterns, I think the content of the message also has to pass muster to be declared "intelligent", or at least a good candidate.

If we get into the content, the DNA pattern searches and SETI content analysis is really the same kind of project.

True, DNA pattern analysis may likely turn up nothing, but it could be the same with SETI also. Being improbable does NOT make an exploration endeavor non-science.

Re:Political Correction

[Savantissimo]

"If Irreducible Complexity were understood as most do (that there is no evolutionary path for something), it's clearly and provably incorrect."

Not to advocate ID, but they do have some good points in their overall fallacious argument. Science has still not (yet) given a convincing account of the orgin of the first cell(s), and evolution requires the existence of a population for natural selection to operate on, so the answer will require scientific theory beyond neo-Darwinian natural selection alone.

It seems to me that the herd mentality and internal censorship of ideas is strongest in disciplines where the evidence is objectively weakest: theology is the worst, followed in turn by sociology, anthropology, archaeology, paleobiology, psychology, biology, and chemistry. Physics is more tolerant of new ideas than the others precisely because they are so subject to test. Being wrong or deviating from the mainstream in a logically coherent way in the softer disciplines is far more likely to shut down a person's career than it is in the harder sciences.

The evidence and theory in evolutionary biology is not so tidy and complete as polemicists try to present. Even when you have seen something happen repeatedly under controlled circumstances there is always room for radically new hypotheses being required as the data become more precise, and evolutionary theory as it exists today hasn't yet fully come to grips with all the oddities already in the evidence. I believe it will in time, but it will require at least as much reworking and addition as physics has over the past 300 years. Theology isn't the answer, but neither is disingenuously trying to act like everything in evolutionary thory has been sewn up since Darwin.

Re:Political Correction

[de Selby]

"Science has still not (yet) given a convincing account of the orgin of the first cell(s), and evolution requires the existence of a population for natural selection to operate on, so the answer will require scientific theory beyond neo-Darwinian natural selection alone."

I agree that "fist life" is a problem with many clues and many ideas but, yet, no conclusive answer. I think it raises an interesting question: should abiogenesis be considered part of the theory of evolution? Currently it isn't, but all the proposed models I know have strong evolution-like mechanisms.

From what little I think I do know about the current state of research, many rocks have pore-like structures that can cause simple fat molecules to form bubbles, or proto-cell membranes. I think one of the questions they are facing is how the escalation from a simple (and short lived) proto-cell to an increasingly robust, modern cell works. Rocks also have regular structures that can select only left-handed or right-handed molecules. The molecules themselves are hypothesized (?) to be able to replicate and evolve right out of chemistry. I don't think anyone's shown this part in a lab.

I think it's fascinating work. But, yeah, early stuff.

But did it really take a large social movement questioning evolution itself to bring this to light? There were already scientists just beginning work on the problem.

"Theology isn't the answer, but neither is disingenuously trying to act like everything in evolutionary thory has been sewn up since Darwin."

I don't think that's what they're doing. It's one thing to say that the case is basically closed that evolution happened. I agree with that much. It's another to say that evolution has solved every problem to which it applies and there are no more questions to answer. But I don't think that's even being said. I don't think I've ever seen it.

Far from that depiction, I have read many biologists (I think even PZ Myers) propose that exposing people to the real debates in evolutionary biology will help people understand what about it is confirmed and what is debatable; and that scientists don't pretend to have all the answers all the time, but they are trying to find out.

Exactly!

[Ayanami Rei]

And in any science, nothing is ever a done deal.

There are always so many facets of each theory to find support for, and more consequences that lead to more theories and questions and derivative truths that must be verified... and if stuff doesn't quite make sense, well then you need to go back and see what assumptions were wrong and fill in the gaps.

I mean, that IS the scientific process! There's always debate and uncertainty. That's not an indication of a wrong avenue of investigation, rather it's a good sign of a worthy field of inquiry.

Of course, we know enough to posit we're in the right ballpark with evolution. There are a lot of basic prinicples we know to be verifiable, but there's still a lot of questions. But we find places to hang the evidence on the framework and the picture is getting sharper all the time. And the theories have tangible derivative ideas that help us in biochemstiry and agriculture and environmental studies, so we have to be on the right track.