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.

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.

Cheap Buzzes

[karlfr]

From TFA: "And some say latching on to a controversial topic is a cheap way to get buzz. Of a 2002 project involving marijuana muffins..."

Hmm... using "marijuana muffins" to get a cheap buzz?

Now there's a novel idea...

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

[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.

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: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.

From someone with first hand experience....

[yamamushi]

As a student who has been competing the Intel Science Fair for the past 4 years, I can say from experience that there are some very BS topics out there. Projects that have no scientific merit, Judges that don't understand what you are talking about so give you a random score depending on their level of intelligence (if you confuse the smart ones you get a low score, but the dumb ones give you high scores). Then there are the projects that couldn't have possibly been done without the help of professionals (their parents are doctors, their teachers doing research for them, etc.). I wrote small operating system 2 years ago, and had the misfortune of having a judge point to a random line in my source code and ask "What does this line do?". When I couldn't answer him (20,000 line+ source), he gave me straight 2's (highest being 6, lowest being 0), which knocked me out of competing at state. San Antonio boasts one of the largests Science Fairs in TX, however they need to get their act straight and get some good judges instead of the one's they've had in the past. For anyone that's interested, I'm doing my project over Buffer Overflows on MINIX 3.0 this year (which supposedly eliminates the threat of Buffer Overflows).

Re:Intelligent Design: why is it lumped with scien

[cutedinochick]

Just curious - why do you think anti-intellectuals are "liberals"? I thought it was the other way around. All the scientists I know (and being a paleo grad student, I've attended a lot of professional meetings, including the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in 2004 which occurred during the presidential elections, so a lot of anger happening there) are very liberal, and we also have discussions during these meetings about ID (creationism) and what we can do about it as educators. I guess you'd call me a liberal because I'm pro-choice and things like that, and I'm giving a talk at my old high school on paleontology and also introducing the topics of ("controversial" to religious people) evolution, plate tectonics, and radioactive dating, because none of these are really taught in school and hey, if you're going to talk about biology and geology, these are unavoidable, as they form the backbone of these sciences.

And isn't the president's administration for the teaching of ID in schools? (shocking, I know) I don't think you can lump all liberals as being anti-intellectual, even if you know some who are, and if you're going to lump either of them as that, I'd have to go with conservatives. But then again, my parents are extrememly conservative and wanted me to get married and have kids right out of high school instead of going to college, so I may just be biased.

However, you're right about ID not being science, of course, as it only tries to fill in the gaps with God and so uses the lack of physical evidence as its basis, which is very non-scientific. We know more about evolution than we do about why gravity works (I've heard it said, but even if not, we still don't know everything about gravity), but you don't see people filling in those holes with "God did it."

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.

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.

most won't become scientists

[surlygrad]

I went to a super competitive prep school, where everyone had Ivy on the brain. I remember two girls my age on the student newspaper. They both worked very hard at it, and when we were seniors they fought each other, practically to the death, over who got the top editor spot. The loser got the next rung. Both went on to Yale. Yale has one of the best college newspapers in the country, the Yale Daily News. I remember looking them up in college to see if either had continued in journalism; the answer was no. The girl who became the editor in chief? She became an investment banker as soon as she graduated. My point is, these kids in the science fairs, like those two girls, are just doing whatever it takes to get into college, and may not have any real interest in being scientists.

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: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: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]

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: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."