Slashdot Mirror
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." '"
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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."
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.