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

Shock Science...

[Cheerio Boy]

So basically what these kids are learning is that they should only be studying subjects that wow and amaze or are in contention.

So much for the lowly germ unless it's causing an epidemic or the lowly bug unless they're swarming.

Regular science goes by the wayside for the "Reality TV" version of science.

start them young

[fermion]

Any future researchers needs to know that if one wants to get the money, one has to get the grants, and if one wants the grants, one has to be in the trendy research of the day.

Of course, the trendy research changes, and one can find oneself in grant limbo. That is why it is often better to do something personally interesting instead of just hoping for money. That way, if you don't get the money, at least you are doing something interesting.

Like everything else, Science is Politics

[Theovon]

Doesn't that make you sad? People have to pass up legitimate, useful research just because the buzzword-laden research gets them more attention and funding.

Not scientists' fault

[ndogg]

All I have to say is that much of the fault for the politicization of science lies not with scientists.

PS Politicization isn't a word, but I'm not sure there's a better term.

Re:Two Kinds of Scientists

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I have to point out that Sagan was also both; he was a working astronomer with a number of significant achievements to his credit before he went the pop-sci route.

Why controversial topics are good

[G4from128k]

If these science projects can help gather data on the true pros and cons of controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.

If these science projects can help inform the public about controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.

If these science projects can help train future voters to think rationally about controversial ideas, then these projects are a good thing.

I'm sure that some of the projects may be buzzword laden copies of wikipedia entries, but I applaud those ernest young researchers that tackle tough societally-relevant topics with good science.

How in the world are students obtaining data?

[unterderbrucke]

I'm a high school senior, and I've been astonished as the smartest kids I know (National Merit Scholars, high 90 average through high school, numerous internships, etc.) get denied by the top colleges. Now I know why.

But, I want to know how these super-students find data to publish new and interesting research on freaking stem cells. It was my understanding that even top scientists had a hard time in the U.S. due to moral objections. How are high school students managing it?

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

[Shag]

As an example, some of the most highly educated, publicly visible, and famous scientists are... astronauts. If their pay scale still goes from GS-11 to GS-14 like it did in the '90s, that means they base pay "starts" (usually after multiple degrees and considerable work in some other field) around $52K, and "top out" under $100K.

NASA had a page up years ago that basically said, "If you want to make money, don't be an astronaut, go into the private sector."

Experience says

[ursabear]

Experience indicates that often the flair of a presentation is more prize-fetching than its substance. Often, the bar is set to standards like "well, they're not professionals so we should cut them some slack."

WRT my kids, their presentations have been along the lines of stuff that is environmentally interesting or is "future science." I'm very proud of the efforts they've made, but honestly, they didn't have a chance against the glitz-covered crowd.

So, really, what becomes important (not winning) is what the student learned about the scientific process. That's the part on which we've focused.

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

[Bloke down the pub]

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.

Agreed, but this still smells of encouraging them to "game the game" from a tender age. Wouldn't it be better to leave that till they're old and cynical (or postgraduates, at least).

Re:What ever happened...

[dlasley]

What ever happened to the good old days when people would make simple rocket nozzles by hand and call it good?

Big bucks college scholarships happened. Parents know a good project might get their kid "seen" by a top college, getting them in and maybe a scholarship (a top school could run $200,000 these days).

Agreed; however, this may also be attributable to the way science was represented and taught in US schools over the past few decades. My science schooling, most of which occured ~15 years ago, consisted of much the same format and content as that which was taught in the 1970s. I'm sure this was in part because the school district was rural and poor, but in the intervening years I've met many people from suburban backgrounds who went to well-to-do schools, and they often had the same textbooks and labwork.

So now we have the web coming in to many schools, and that makes up for a lot of the gaps - but you still need the teaching methods and the practicuum experiences to leap forward in conjunction with the wealth of information. That means re-training many instructors and ensuring the newest graduates who will be teaching science are equipped to help make the changes happen at all the early levels of education.

I am greatly concerned because the latest federal budget hamstrings many such programs, and state governments are following in the same vein. Now I am looking into ways of teaching my child science and technology at home in case her schools are never given the opportunity to retool and retrain. I encourage all parents to do the same if they want their children exposed to the challenges of science and scientific thinking.

• International Science Fair, a kick-starter for ideas
• Fun Science
• A piece about putting the learning back in science
• What you don't want to happen

&laz;

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

[skoaldipper]

Unfortunately, this type of science and academic research tends itself to more biased (and synthetic) science; for example, environmental studies and their impact are ripe with that effect, on both sides. Most PhD(s) in academia will lecture you to the woes of such burdens placed upon them, captivating you like a wise nursery tale if you only indulge them but for a second.

Such was not the case only a few decades ago. What you witness today is the symbiosis between Market and Science. Their is no defense for it, nor practical excuse of it. And now we bear testament to science fair competitors enlisting a Jerry Springer type enterprise of lure and appeal? See a trend here? This is why you need substantial state or federal funding to offest this decaying influence from Industry (which is pandemic in our Universities).

Re:Upside/downside

[Sigma 7]

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.

The school that I went to balanced things out by having a list of science fair projects that we take and use to set up a display... This was intended to prevent killer advanced projects from coming in, and to prevent a whole quantity of volcanos. Basically, it evened the playing field.

My project: Create a chocolate bar wrapper . That's right, I had an art project.

My research that there are two ways to design the wrapper: black and white (for a higher-class look), and coloured (for the masses.)

But that's all besides the point - the real issue is that there was a creativity mark on the grading scale used in the science fair. That either means I was graded on the creativeness of the laminated sheet at the front of the room, or that I was graded on the artisticness of the chocolate bar wrapper. Probably should have researched Tachyons instead.

This is a false dichotomy.

[Ayanami Rei]

The dichotomy (if any exists), is thus:

* Lifeforms change over time to adapt to changing conditions.
* Lifeforms never change.

Note that this doesn't even begin to address how life came into being in the first place, nor even exactly what life is!

The researchers who study where life came from do not overlap with those who study the origin of species. This is because we have little to no evidence to make any claims to what happened before the fossil record, and we little left of the earth's surface that hasn't been turned into magma in the last half billion years. So the only we can posit how life might have began is to try different biochemical theories and try to duplicate it ourselves... then test to see if there any indicators that the earth could have those same conditions long ago.

So either we came from goo...
Or maybe life came from elsewhere in the solar system.
Or maybe the Christian god did it.
Or maybe we are all living in a computer simulation and the fauna and flora are the creation of a deranged ex-Disney employee.

This is a completely divorced concept from evolution.

I mean we could have the Genesis creation scenario, where all the animals appeared at once, and a false fossil record created... AND STILL HAVE EVOLUTION. You know, maybe animals evolved anyway and in 50,000 years we'll have slightly different or new furry friends.

Maybe there is a god. And evolution. Or maybe there isn't, and there's evolution.
Or maybe there is no god or evolution, and animals just spawn like in an MMORPG.

*shrugs*