High Schooler Is Awarded $100,000 For Research

wired_LAIN writes "A teenager from Oklahoma was awarded $100,000 in the Intel Science Talent Search competition for building an inexpensive and accurate spectrograph that can identify the specific characteristics of different kinds of molecules. While normal spectrographs can cost between $20,000 and $100,000 to build, her spectrograph cost less than $500. The 40 finalists' projects were judged by a panel of 12 scientists, all well established in their respective fields. Among the judges were Vera Rubin, who proved Dark Matter, and Andrew Yeager, one of the pioneers of stem cell research."

Comments

"Awarded" or "Paid"?

[timeOday]

Does she keep the rights to her invention, or does somebody else get ownership of them? This sounds like a potentially valuable invention.

Re:"Awarded" or "Paid"?

[QuasiEvil]

As a former Westinghouse STS finalist (back in 1995, before it became the Intel STS), you get to keep all rights. The cash is just the prize for being top in the nation. It literally is just prize money, or at least was back then. I wouldn't think things have changed that much, as some of the research I was competing with had applications far more valuable than $100k. There's also a lot of other perks - academic offers and scholarships to all sorts of interesting institutions, trips, resume padding, etc.

Dollar dollars

[HTH NE1]

The summary is incorrect. The actual cost, as stated in the article, is less than $1000, which is a bit more than $500.

Actually, the summery said, "her spectrograph cost less than $500 dollars". Have you any idea how much a 500-dollar dollar is worth? Her spectrograph costs less than at least two of them!

Other winners

[jotok]

From the Intel Science Talent Search website:

Second Place: John Pardon, 17, of Chapel Hill, N.C., solved a classical open problem in differential geometry
Third Place: Dmitry Vaintrob, 18, of Eugene, Ore., proved that loop homology and Hochschild cohomology coincide for an important class of spaces
Fourth Place: Catherine Schlingheyde, 17, of Oyster Bay, N.Y., for her research on microRNA repression
Fifth Place: Rebecca Kaufman, 17, of Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., for her study of the effects of male hormones in a model of schizophrenia
Sixth Place: Gregory Brockman, 18, of Thompson, N.D., for his mathematics project that provided a thorough analysis of Ducci sequences
Seventh Place: Megan Blewett, 17, of Madison, N.J., for her analysis of a protein that may be implicated in multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Eighth Place: Daniel Handlin, 18, of Lincroft, N.J., for developing an accurate, low-cost method of determining the position of geo-stationary Earth-orbit (GEO) satellites
Ninth Place: Meredith MacGregor, 18, of Boulder, Colo., for her research on the fluid dynamics of the "Brazil Nut Effect"
Tenth Place: Emma Call, 18, of Baltimore, Md., for the fabrication of 3-D microcubes

I'm amazed at what these kids were able to accomplish. How much support did they have? What schools do they attend? How much money were they granted to accomplish their research?

In any case, I have two thoughts on this:
One, good teachers and money can't make stupid kids smart, but they sure as hell can enable really smart kids to shine. I wonder how this ties in with Bill Gates' recent announcements concerning the state of science and math education in American schools.

Two, I notice a complete lack of representation by the "soft" sciences. Is it because the people writing the grants share the same disdain for disciplines that lack explanatory power as everyone else, or is it because it's easier to set up a biology program than a sociology program? I suspect a little of both--you probably need far more social context than an 18-year-old will have to pursue studies of voter demographics (not to mention the data acq is probably beyond their capabilities).

But some of that context used to be handled by education as well--you had to read the classics, you had to study some philosophy, you had to know history. My aero engineer friend has really never done any of that, so he's an engineer who doesn't know what "empiricism" means. Is this also a failing by our educational system? Isn't such education necessary to be a good researcher?

Overview of her Project

[Somegeek]

From her biography on sciserv.org:

"Her Littrow spectrograph splits light, like a prism, and uses a camera to record the resulting Raman spectra - a specific vibrational fingerprint of the molecular compound being investigated. Using a laser as her light source, Mary tested several household objects and solvents and compared her results to published wave numbers. Despite the shortcomings of the inexpensive laser, she found she could make relatively accurate wavelength measurements with her homemade device."

Re:Okay can we see the project?

[quanminoan]

This link provides a little more information.

Re:This nation...

[MillionthMonkey]

I can practically hear the shipping containers being filled in Beijing with $199 combination laser pointer/spectrographs as we speak!

I have to remember to pick one up at Costco when we go next week.

Re:Accurate? Is it Calibrated?

[644bd346996]

She measured the spectra of known household substances and got numbers that fit with published data. That is a decent basis for calling it accurate, especially when you consider that her design can probably be improved quite a bit without making it much more expensive. A mass-produced, quality-controlled spectrograph based off her design could revolutionize the way such devices are used, because they are so cheap.

fascinating gender differences in the prizes

[retrosurf]

All the boys worked on mathematics based tasks, and
all the girls were working on physical sciences, or
at least more applied problems.

Well, there's that one well rounded kid that applied
mathematics to the triangulation of geosynchronous
satellites, but the other guys were heavy math geeks.