Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

8-Year-Olds Publish Scientific Bee Study

Posted by samzenpus on from the write-of-the-bumblebee dept.

flintmecha writes "A group of British schoolchildren may be the youngest scientists ever to have their work published in a peer-reviewed journal. In a new paper in Biology Letters, children from Blackawton Primary School report that buff-tailed bumblebees can learn to recognize nourishing flowers based on colors and patterns. The paper itself is well worth reading. It's written entirely in the kids' voices, complete with sound effects (part of the Methods section is subtitled, ''the puzzle'duh duh duuuhhh') and figures drawn by hand in colored pencil."

54 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. I have one thing to say to those kids: by windcask · · Score: 2

    That's 'adorabee.'

    *ba-dum, ching*

    1. Re:I have one thing to say to those kids: by RobiOne · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you want 'adorabumble'

      -- Rob

      --
      -- Robi
  2. It's harsh but... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that's how it is in these publish or perish primary schools.

  3. That is what education is meant to be ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but sadly isn't, all too often. That said, it's good to know that there are teachers out there who care to run such projects, as well as lucky bright kids to take part in them.

    1. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by pspahn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, unfortunately we have way too much interest in teaching children things like "content standards". As a result, we have way too many "hand out, sit down" teachers who might teach a kid how to pass the state mandated test, but they are incapable of learning things through critical reasoning. This is not engaging to most students. They want interaction and feedback and praise and it takes a VERY special kind of person to be willing to do that.

      Out of all the teachers I've had and have worked with, very very few have the necessary blend of proper teaching style and the ability to relate to the younger generation. Too often they are too young to know how to teach effectively, or are too old to be able to see things from the kids' perspectives.

      Side note: I recall hearing on talk radio several years ago that education majors have some of the lowest SAT scores. I'm not sure the exact figure, but this does not surprise me, nor is it necessarily a bad thing. There really need to be more teachers out there, as I would prefer my child have co-teachers that each bring a certain quality to the classroom versus one teacher who is typically incapable of adapting to the class dynamic.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that in one second we condemn standardization as evil, and in the next we praise standardization as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff?

    3. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just keep in mind that it isn't completely the teacher's fault, at least in the US. In the states, forcing teachers to teach to a test, or risk losing funding for their school (and bonuses for themselves) is the problem. This is one reason I would prefer much more control at the local level, and only guidance at the federal level. Concerned parents can only get involved when the decision making is local, and are powerless when it comes to forced federal mandates. Unconcerned parents, well, it doesn't really matter, so lets worry about the parents who actually are trying to help their kids. The children of the unconcerned parents will get the same educational outcome regardless of the system.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      If you want the best people to be teachers then you need to pay them like you mean it. It takes an extremely dedicated person to accept the relatively low level of pay teachers receive if they have opportunities for much higher pay in other fields.

    5. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by azalin · · Score: 2

      Parents are much too focused on their own children to really further common good.

      Nobody cares about "the children", they care about "their children".

      Example needed? Well I could bring up a few school reforms here that were canceled because some parents fought with nails and teeth against the, but you would probably never heard of/care for the places involved.

      Just think about adding diversity to a school. Be it Black/Hispanic/Asian/lower income/disabled/Muslim/whatever else is different from my peer group.

    6. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by Teancum · · Score: 3

      My largest complaint about standardized tests is that the teachers/instructors teach for the test itself, and in fact spend far too much time talking about testing strategies and how to physically take the test itself or concentrating on trying to push the students to get a high score on the test rather than trying to teach the material actually covered by the test.

      If you want students to regurgitate rote answers that come from a multiple-guess testing service, I suppose that helps. While that may assay the raw information that a student may possess, it does little to show that the student can apply that knowledge in any reasonable form.

      Then again I'm a big fan of essay tests or better yet, as appropriate, some sort of demonstration of the knowledge such a a "final project" or something of substance which can be used to show that the student has been able to assemble the knowledge from the class in a reasonable manner. A "term paper" is another good example of this. It is much harder on the instructor to go this route as it requires evaluating the students more directly on their knowledge and more importantly their comprehension of the topic.

      This particular paper that was published in Biology Letters is precisely the kind of "final project" that to me ought to be routine for even elementary schools, even if it doesn't necessarily get published in a formal journal of this nature. Showing kids that they are certainly capable of doing real science and pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge is something that ought to be a part of science education in particular. I applaud this particular teacher, and I hope that this example can be used to encourage other bright students to at the very least build a science fair exhibit of the quality which goes beyond the volcano models that I see far too often.

    7. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, international comparisons show that the most successful school systems are the ones where teachers are recruited from the high flyers. Finland was given as an example. From the article (in The Economist) it seemed that a really good teacher was far more important than class size, one of the things that people fight for. The conclusion seemed to be to pay, and respect, teachers more so that high flyers see teaching as a worthwhile career, and let class sizes grow if they have to.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    8. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2
      And I can bring up examples (from an equally obscure place) of parents volunteering time, attention, energy, and money to help the "the children" not just "their children".

      It's easy to be cynical - it comes across as clever. Doesn't mean it's accurate

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    9. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2

      Surprisingly, money isn't the end-all-be-all for some people. Teachers seemingly fall into that category. My folks were great teachers (still are, even in retirement). Money, while important, wasn't that important for them. Especially my mother. My wife currently teaches at the local community college. She's not getting rich, either. Amazingly, she finds her work satisfying/gratifying, despite the lack of wealth.

      As I see it, there is a fundamental dishonesty in this discussion that never gets addressed.I don't think money is the root issue here. We have enough money. I think the real issue is that money has strings attached.

      In America, we have quite a bit of money allocated towards education. Federal monies, state money, local bond money. However, that money isn't a gift. The institutions raising and providing the money want something in return. Like all good institutions, they want control. The government doesn't just want to "educate children" - they want to make their vision of educating children real.

      Educating a child is an easy thing. They are designed to learn things. Making that education fit a particular vision, well... that's a different thing.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    10. Re:That is what education is meant to be ... by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 2

      My mom is one of the best mathematics teachers I've ever met. She teachers middle school special education and her kids with learning disabilities often jump up to grade level in her class.
      She's terrible at math. Barely passed it as a student. She's a better teacher for it because she understands what it means to not understand.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
  4. Idle? by Garth+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This story has been tagged "idle" by Slashdot. That's an insult! What's wrong with our culture that even the geeks and nerds among us don't see education as important? These 8-10 year olds just had a better science lesson than most anything kids get today.

    The best science class I ever had was in high school. My lab partner and I were given 2 test tubes with 2 types of bacteria. This was out of a possible 10 types. We were given 2 weeks to identify them and write a report on our methods. This was when I was 16! Not only did I learn a lot but that was just such a fucking cool assignment that I would consider it a much MUCH better experience than YEARS of mediocre science classes combined! Science was actually exciting, and I pray to Christ and the Buddha that these teachers get some respect soon before stupid takes over.

    1. Re:Idle? by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. By the looks of the paper they wrote, it seems that many of the better science fair projects ought to try submitting their results too.

      10 years old: determine differences in plant growth between indoor lighting and natural sun light (never thought to do what these kids did though... oh well)

      15: genetic transformation of bacteria w/ ampicillin resistance gene (successful)

      19: Selenium hyperaccumulation research paper submitted and accepted by Science

      I know I've done that experiment too but I forget exactly when it was. From what I've seen, it seems that a lot of the difference between a good education and a rather mediocre one is in what you decide to take if you have a choice. If you take genetics in high school, you'll probably get to do a lot of neat stuff compared to just trying to slide through school.

      Of course a lot of the problem lies with the teachers who have often had their curiosity ruined in their school years like a lot of other people have. What needs to happen is geeks like us need to become teachers or at least mentors and inspire the next generation to do the neat stuff we did.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Idle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you've got that backwards. Teachers and Scientists => Nerds/Geeks who often were victims of bullying do most of the intellectual work while the more "social", manipulative group became politicians and bankers. School is just a much more extreme form of real life.

    3. Re:Idle? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Agreed. By the looks of the paper they wrote, it seems that many of the better science fair projects ought to try submitting their results too.

      Whatever on earth for? Let's step back for a minute: Science (with a big S) is about advancing our collective knowledge. If you read the paper (PDF on the linked website), you'll find that what the kids did doesn't really fit into the regular pattern: They neither refer to nor make an effort to relate their results to the relevant literature. That implicitly devalues their contribution somewhat.

      Of course, the fact that they are kids doing science is extremely interesting, as it gives insight into the nature of science itself. So in a sense this paper is an experiment itself, with the kids as the subjects and the experimental bees as stimulus.

      But there's no reason to start filling journals with science fair projects and kids' experiments just because it's kids doing it. Whether it's a kid or a grad student or a professor doing the research isn't the point of science. The point is to advance collective knowledge in a timely and relevant way for current and future generations.

      There are few examples in history of laymen (eg Michael Faraday) who were able to rise to this challenge. Most commonly, it requires many years of study just to get to the frontier of research, unless the field is so new that it is wide open. And even then, one is competing with other scientists who have lots of previous experience and can quickly catch up. By the nature of things that puts school kids at an insurmountable disadvantage, unless they are very, very lucky.

    4. Re:Idle? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These kids did advance our collective knowledge. They did an experiment that no one else had done, because they were interested in the results. From those results they learned something.

      I see no reason a good science fair project couldn't do the same. If a elementary school kids in Egypt or a high school kid in Tanzania (see: 'The Mpemba effect') can do it, why not others?

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  5. Good thing they didn't include birds also by 2.7182 · · Score: 2

    Or it would have been considered illegal.

    1. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to be the cynic, but this looks really contrived. And phrases like the one in the abstract "we learned that science can be cool" (paraphrased) are so old hat and trite. I hear my kid come back from school programmed to say the same thing. It seems that this work could give the children involved what actual scientific work is like. I am concerned that the real reason for this work to further the career of their attention getting teacher. [Just conjecture.]

    2. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by 2.7182 · · Score: 2

      I guess the real problem, which I think you are getting at, is that the children didn't act independently on the project, and that this could mislead them into thinking they had done real science?

    3. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next experiment:

      Investigations into the Correlation Between Cynicism and Technically-Oriented Social Network Participation

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    4. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      All peer review means is that the paper has been vetted for obvious errors. It's sort of like a spellchecker for science. It is merely the first step on the road to accepted science.

    5. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by Eraesr · · Score: 2

      I'm also wondering where the author of the original post got the idea that it was written entirely in the kids' voices. The entire paper is riddled with words that an 8 year old would never, ever use.
      Having said that, I think it's a good to get kids interested in nature, biology and science.

    6. Re:Good thing they didn't include birds also by DMiax · · Score: 2

      Even a master student or a PhD student does not work independently. That kind of thing happens at a higher stage after you worked and experienced many types of research, have collaborations and know where to get your ideas. And most importantly you can judge if an idea is worth investigating or not. This kids just got an early start on that, don't knock them down just because they don't get a Nobel right away.

  6. Re: Pink Floyd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    ... when British children have evolved from worry about "eating your meat" ...

    That kind of evolution really happens when you REALLY want your pudding.

  7. Finally... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's written entirely in the kids' voices, complete with sound effects (...) and figures drawn by hand in colored pencil.

    ... a scientific write-up Republicans will be able to understand! :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  8. Great job by cvtan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Glad the journal didn't bounce the work because the figures were not done in Excel or Powerpoint. I'm ashamed I never used crayon for any of mine. Crayons are at least open source and DRM free.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  9. Emily Rosa by Genrou · · Score: 4, Informative

    Very nice to find that there are kids who are being taught about science. Before them, Emily Rosa was the youngest to publish a peer-reviewed paper. Her paper was an amazing experiment to refute terapeutic touch in a very well conducted study. Kudos to them

    1. Re:Emily Rosa by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the fact is, it was really written by the kids teachers.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Emily Rosa by Garth+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since Slashdot doesn't RTFA. Teacher wrote the abstract. The educators transcribed the rest from what the kids said verbally. Diagrams were made by the kids. The teacher collected everything and you could say worked as Editor-in-Chief, Typesetter, etc. Both the kids and the educators are listed as authors.

    3. Re:Emily Rosa by Maria+D · · Score: 3, Informative

      Piaget published his first paper, also on biology, at ten. He could not get into the local scientific library without being a scholar. He asked what it takes, and the librarian said "a publication" - so he did just that.
      http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/piaget_jean.html

      I wonder if his early problems led him to study what children are capable of later. Ironically, his developmental theories were often misinterpreted to mean that children should be restricted from some studies, especially in mathematics. There are some videos of Piaget yelling at people for that, at conferences. He has fun studies on toddlers doing proportional reasoning and what not.

  10. Kudos by euphemistic · · Score: 2

    Kudos to the school here, and Beau Lotto too. They managed to achieve something absolutely amazing, educational and potentially inspirational for the kids in this class. It was a fantastic idea, and hopefully will advance the cause of science education in schools.

  11. Difficulties getting it published? by RossR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like it was hard to published it on its merits alone. The last line of the paper is a bit cryptic.

    "The project was funded privately by Lottolab Studio, as the referees argued that young people cannot do real science."

    What does the funding source have to do with the referees' prejudices? Was some extra funding needed to resolve their concerns?

    Personally, I am going to look for an excuse to cite their paper.

    1. Re: Difficulties getting it published? by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personally, I am going to look for an excuse to cite their paper.

      Here's one for you (and for commercial greenhouse-based farmers with multiple crops per greenhouse). Can the effectiveness of bee-based pollination inside greenhouses be increased by using similarly-patterned layouts in each greenhouse, then transporting "trained" hives from greenhouse to greenhouse? Can pollination-runs be accomplished faster with pattern-trained bees, thus allowing one hive to effectively pollinate more greenhouses per week? If bees "trained" to specific locations in a pattern head to that pattern preferentially, specific crops can be targeted.

      "Cycle the outer-circle bees through the greenhouses, the roma tomatoes are ready for pollination and we don't want the bees wasting time on the pepper plants in the inner zone."

      Research into application into cost savings.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  12. Pure Research is Not Dead by Wingit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Brilliant work and pure science for the sake of science. It is not earth shattering news, but is exactly what science is meant to bring to the human experience. The life of the children involved is forever changed. Now some of them will go on to discover more things that are right under our nose and write about it intelligently. Few will care but, in the end, we all benefit.

    --
    We win together or suffer without.
    1. Re:Pure Research is Not Dead by shoehornjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Few will care but, in the end, we all benefit.

      Screw the people that don't care about engaging kids in science. America is sadly deficient in this area. We're overly preocupied with our false reality (tv) to appreciate the need for kids to learn science and math. I love the little bit at the end:

      The project was funded privately by Lottolab Studio, as the referees argued that young people cannot do real science.

      What they did was commendable even if the teacher had to transcribe their work.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  13. I cannot condone this by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's great that these students are excited about science and were able to participate in a learning experience like this, but after reading the paper it's clear to me this was published only because the children are 8; the true value of this paper is for educators in the sciences looking to motivate children through unique projects.

    I hate to be a Negative Nancey, but if the current paper (with more formal language of course) were submitted for by a college graduate it would be rejected outright. The paper begins by asserting that the ability to problem solve is a sign of extreme intelligence, and further conflates pattern recognition and intelligence. The methods seem sound (control, rigorous data taking) but there is no statistical analysis of the data to show correlations, just a statement of "more did this therefore..." Further they make the claim that no one has ever done this particular experiment, yet a quick search yield over 50,000 articles pertaining to pattern recognition in bees. Yet nothing like this was ever conducted? Seriously? Given this prior research, it is their obligation to show how their research is unique and different, and further why it is important. I realize the paper states that the students couldn't do this since the language in the literature is far above their level, but it's just another reason showing this paper was published because of their age, not because of the work.

    Again, good on the students for having fun and enjoying science, but I'm a firm believer that results should stand on their own irrespective of the experimenter's ages.

    1. Re:I cannot condone this by gringer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Scientists don't need to be statisticians to be able to do good research. They also don't need to be good writers, or good reviewers. These things help, but shouldn't be necessary in order to get results out to the world.

      I, for one, am glad that this paper was published. It gives the scientific community as a whole the opportunity to critique this, rather than just the reviewing panel. It looks like the review process worked well in this case — the investigation that was carried out seems reasonable, and I very much doubt that the published version is the first version that the journal editors saw, even though they have kept in some of the cutesy language.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:I cannot condone this by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

      Scientists don't need to be statisticians to be able to do good research. Scientists don't need to be statisticians to be able to do good research.

      No, but they would be better researchers for it. In my opinion faulty conclusions derived from bogus statistics is one of the worst problems in science. Next to that is no statistical analysis at all.

      It gives the scientific community as a whole the opportunity to critique this, rather than just the reviewing panel.

      There is a different between doing experiments and doing research. Experiments are the fun part of science: thinking of ideas, designing tests, recording data. Research is a step further, and involves background review of the literature, and significant analysis and interpretation of the data. It's clear that the students did experiments, and very good ones at that. But they didn't do research.

      Research gets published, experiments do not. If you want to publish experiments, there's always the Internet, where you can make claims that bees are intelligent problem solvers capable of solving complex puzzles. I, however, don't want to see this in my journals just because the paper has a "how adorable" backstory.

    3. Re:I cannot condone this by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      I hate to be a Negative Nancey, but if the current paper (with more formal language of course) were submitted for by a college graduate it would be rejected outright. The paper begins by asserting that the ability to problem solve is a sign of extreme intelligence, and further conflates pattern recognition and intelligence. The methods seem sound (control, rigorous data taking) but there is no statistical analysis of the data to show correlations, just a statement of "more did this therefore..." Further they make the claim that no one has ever done this particular experiment, yet a quick search yield over 50,000 articles pertaining to pattern recognition in bees. Yet nothing like this was ever conducted? Seriously? Given this prior research, it is their obligation to show how their research is unique and different, and further why it is important. I realize the paper states that the students couldn't do this since the language in the literature is far above their level, but it's just another reason showing this paper was published because of their age, not because of the work.

      I think you are wrong. The paper you criticize is good or even excellent in every aspect of a scientific paper. I have reviewed a lot of scientific papers that were terrible even though written by adult researchers. They were far worse than this one, and much less innovative. Talking of which: your criticism of the paper's novelty is one of the typical tools of the grumpy referee - claiming that the method or finding presented is not novel, while comparing it to papers which do not, actually, treat the same subject at all (but are superficially similar). That will impress the editor, but not most researchers in the subject field. But unfortunately, impressing the editor is all it takes to have a good and valuable paper rejected from publication. Luckily, there are myriads of competing journals, and chances are that a good article can avoid the grumpy reviewer.

      Kudos to the young researchers that published this work. I will avoid calling them kids on purpose, for in this context they are nothing less than my peers.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  14. Blackawton ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Informative

    I notice that the town, the school, and the first author are all named Blackawton. When I looked that up on wikipedia all I can find is the town itself, no information on where the name derives from. I was wondering how they decided who would get first-author rights on the paper (very important in the biological sciences)?

    And one little thing I noticed on the paper itself when I read the full text (free in html or pdf through the web site) - they didn't cite any sources. Few publications would allow that these days, I would have expected that their corresponding (last) author would have added in some sources to establish the background at the least.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Blackawton ? by flak89 · · Score: 2

      And one little thing I noticed on the paper itself when I read the full text (free in html or pdf through the web site) - they didn't cite any sources. Few publications would allow that these days, I would have expected that their corresponding (last) author would have added in some sources to establish the background at the least.

      While I agree that the absence of source may be a problem in most cases of publishing a scientific paper, the corresponding author explain in the abstract why it would not be a good idea to publish this article with references. The research is still original, 8yo or not, and well at least they do not try to hide the fact that there is no references.

    2. Re:Blackawton ? by Psychotria · · Score: 2

      Literature review isn't necessary in all papers. If your professor says different he is most likely wrong. Literature review is used primarily to support assumptions or gaps in your experiment design, or to refute previous findings. To refute previous findings your experiment must surely include and account for those previous findings. If your hypothesis and experiment makes no assumptions then a literature review included in the final document is mostly pointless. Even if that is false, there are countless papers where previous results and literature are cited and the cited material is finally declared false because nobody cared to check the cited material for many years! as for the "tone" of your written material, well, honestly, if that matters then your supervisors are idiots. A scientific paper does not have to be written in the passive voice, avoid personal pronouns, or have a specific "tone".

    3. Re:Blackawton ? by VJ42 · · Score: 2

      "no background or literature review, please revise. Please consider the tone of your paper." The fact that research is original does not guarantee publication.

      They weren't guaranteed publication; from the wired article:

      Getting the paper published was a struggle as well. In particular, several journals got stuck on the fact that the paper doesn’t cite any references.

      However, I'm inclined to agree with the justification given in the paper abstract:

      including references in this instance would be disingenuous for two reasons. First, given the way scientific data are naturally reported, the relevant information is simply inaccessible to the literate ability of 8- to 10-year-old children, and second, the true motivation for any scientific study (at least one of integrity) is one's own curiousity, which for the children was not inspired by the scientific literature, but their own observations of the world. This lack of historical, scientific context does not diminish the resulting data, scientific methodology or merit of the discovery for the scientific and ‘non-scientific’ audience. On the contrary, it reveals science in its truest (most naive) form,

      and see no reason for denying publication.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  15. Peer review by BenBoy · · Score: 2

    Peer reviewed? So then, it was reviewed by 8 year olds? How hard is that?

  16. Big Deal by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 2

    My 8 y.o boy shoots rubber darts at my LCD TV.

    --
    I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  17. According to the reviwers (Re:I cannot condone.. ) by prakslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was skeptical as well but according to the reviewers:

    "What is novel in the experiment presented here is that bees learned colour and pattern cues in a spatially complex scene composed of two-coloured local and global patterns. Coloured patterns at small and large spatial scales have been little studied, and hence our knowledge of how colourful patterns and scenes are perceived by insects is still scarce."

    I am assuming that the above statements are true and the paper is novel. There are citations in the reviewers' comments indicating that the reviewers referred previous work in this area but still found the kids' research to be novel. Finally, even though the reviewers appreciate dthe fact that the paper was written by children and lacked advanced analysis, they didn't seem too biased. All this has made me less skeptical now.

  18. Eight year olds, Dude by rackrent · · Score: 2

    no message. I'm out of my element.

    --
    --- There is a man in a smiling bag.
  19. Re:and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have you got any meaningful criticism on the science of the paper?

  20. Re:and by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you mean 'and' as in the primary school published and the journal's scientific reputation perished.

    I guarantee you that the reputation of Biology Letters is not in any danger. It is and will remain a top-tier journal, and its readership will pay no attention to the opinions of trolls in making this judgement.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  21. This passed peer review? by abigsmurf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Had a read of the paper and there seem to be two big flaws that are not addressed and would've prevented a paper passing 'regular' peer review.

    1: They never address the possibility the bees are just smelling the sugared water. They clean the 'stems' to ensure the bees don't attract other bees through smells (although that itself is also questionable, presumably the smell a bee releases would be released all over) but don't do anything about the sugar/salt water itself.

    2: There's no evidence the bees can see colours (assuming point 1 is moot). Namely because of the choice of patterns. They use bright colours alongside dark ones. The bees could just be seeing light and dark. There's only one low contrast pattern (the green and blue one) which would've been great for testing this but they chose to put it alongside one with mixed bright and dark colours. Also, without an even spread of light and dark areas, the bees may not even be recognising patterns, they may just be going "this area is darker than the other one, the other one has the sugar water". Spoilsport I know but they shouldn't pretend this is anything other than a cute bit of PR.

  22. Re: Pink Floyd by wed128 · · Score: 2

    In my opinion, we need to get rid of all the dark sarcasm that exists in the classroom...