BT Young Scientist - is there something fishy? MOD Note in OP

kaymin

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’ve worked at containment levels 2 and 3. 3 is a lot more stringent than 2 but 2 still needs a good knowledge of sterile technique for starters. This kid might have that with a microbiologist mother though. But that’s just the start. To ensure there’s no contamination, you’ll need plenty of lab training. Even in a science degree, you’ll be dealing with level 1 stuff for most or all of your degree. No schoolkid will be let near anything other than level 1. And his poster seems to confirm that he did not deal with MRSA himself.

Why do you think things are ascribed containment levels if you think they are just meaningless? They’re not for fun. I had to be vaccinated against the level 3 stuff I was working with before I was allowed anywhere near them.

I didn't say they were meaningless. What level is MRSA? Does his poster confirm he didn't deal with MRSA or was that others reading into something that is actually incorrect. I'm wary of your claim he wouldn't be allowed near anything above level 1 - even without supervision from his mother?

There's alot of assumptions being made to disparage this lad and many reasons why claims such as yours could be wrong.

_Dara_

kaymin wrote: »

I didn't say they were meaningless. What level is MRSA? Does his poster confirm he didn't deal with MRSA or was that others reading into something that is actually incorrect. I'm wary of your claim he wouldn't be allowed near anything above level 1 - even without supervision from his mother?

There's alot of assumptions being made to disparage this lad and many reasons why claims such as yours could be wrong.

MRSA is level 2. I worked with level 2 in the final year of my degree when time could be devoted to it.

You don’t seem to taking on board anything anyone is saying. What’s the point? You’re as entrenched in your viewpoint as anyone else here. His poster is here on the thread, take a look at it yourself if you are so doubting.

kaymin

_Dara_ wrote: »

MRSA is level 2. I worked with level 2 in the final year of my degree when time could be devoted to it.

You don’t seem to taking on board anything anyone is saying. What’s the point? You’re as entrenched in your viewpoint as anyone else here. His poster is here on the thread, take a look at it yourself if you are so doubting.

I'm not entrenched at all. In fact I haven't made any claims about whether his project is legit or not. I look at other people's arguments such as yours and find there's holes allover. As far as I recall the project poster referred to the fact that the experiments were conducted in UCC - that does not indicate they were done by someone else - it's posters such as yourself that's making that leap. Maybe you should look at your own biases.

_Dara_

kaymin wrote: »

I'm not entrenched at all. In fact I haven't made any claims about whether his project is legit or not. I look at other people's arguments such as yours and find there's holes allover. As far as I recall the project poster referred to the fact that the experiments were conducted in UCC - that does not indicate they were done by someone else - it's posters such as yourself that's making that leap. Maybe you should look at your own biases.

The MRSA stuff was done by medical scientists. It clearly states that on his poster. Not that they helped him. So that’s some work not done by him. Others in the know have said that is there is no way he’d have done the HP LC himself. It’s expensive kit too, I’d imagine.

kaymin

_Dara_ wrote: »

The MRSA stuff was done by medical scientists. It clearly states that on his poster. Not that they helped him. So that’s some work not done by him. Others in the know have said that is there is no way he’d have done the HP LC himself. It’s expensive kit too, I’d imagine.

Fair enough but it's clearly disclosed to the judges and to the public that he received this assistance re MRSA testing The project poster also refers to the tests on staph aureus done in UCC without reference to help from others - I'm not sure if that's the HP LC you're referring to. If he's claiming or implying he did work that he didn't do then I'd come off the fence on this discussion but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Muahahaha

jmcc wrote: »

Based on past events where projects are Computer Science based, some of the judging might not be up to speed with that.

Regards...jmcc

I thought the Computer Science kids that won before were breaking new ground, no? How was the judging not up to speed?

_Dara_ wrote: »

Anyhoo, this lad will remain the winner. But hopefully behind the scenes, it’s being discussed and maybe things will change.

Thats exactly what I am thinking. They will be a lot more careful in 2019. Though I doubt that will stop the parents competing. Its good that this discussion is being had but the Young Scientists competition is tarnished now and unless everyone gets access to post-doctoral research and lab equipment then it is not and nor will it ever be a level playing field.

evolving_doors

Deep_learning wrote: »

I've long been dubious of the performance of schools such as Coláiste Choilm and Kinsale Community school in BTYS.


For example, it's interesting to note in the link below that not a single student from either Coláiste Choilm or Kinsale Community school qualified for the Irish Science Olympiad.


http://castel.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IrEUSO-2017-Finalists.pdf


Surely, if all these students were all as brilliant in science as their projects suggest, loads of them would be qualifying for the Irish Science Olympiad by scoring high marks in science and maths in the Junior Cert? Yet, not a single student from either school scored high marks in maths and science in a state examination in order to qualify for the olympiad.

Strange that.

Olympiad is a totally different animal.
BTYS is about 1 or 2 students making a solo run on a longitudinal study.
Similarly teachers/schools can choose to focus on particular competition(s). I know of a few schools where BTYS is timetabled for a whole yeargroupp.

evolving_doors

kaymin wrote: »

Fair enough but it's clearly disclosed to the judges and to the public that he received this assistance re MRSA testing The project poster also refers to the tests on staph aureus done in UCC without reference to help from others - I'm not sure if that's the HP LC you're referring to. If he's claiming or implying he did work that he didn't do then I'd come off the fence on this discussion but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

His poster is saying he got the experiments done for him.
That's against the guidelines.

These should only be used if they are relevant to your research and if you are capable of doing and understanding them yourself.

Although maybe he was 'capable' of doing them... but just outsourced them.

georgina toadbum

This revelation has made me feel so much better about myself.

gozunda

Don't know if this has been posted but is of interest in that it covers the rules of the competition and details a lot of what has been discussed here

http://btyoungscientist.com/rules/

Interestingly I can't find any link to register or submit comments or feedback

Advice on the competition also includes the following

Lack of originality
The specific question raised in a project must be one that has not been posed and recorded by any previous scientist. However, this is not to say that twenty projects on the topic of, for example, radon gas or water pollution, could not be original, if they will all deal in different ways with different aspects of the topics.

Imo the above guideline is ambiguous enough to permit the possible reuse of aligned or similar projects

deezell

kaymin wrote: »

....... most people have MRSA on their skin...... So there seems little reason to think he could not do the experiments himself. Does anyone have hard evidence to the contrary?

Most people have potatoes in their press but that doesn't mean they are allowed to brew up poteen, even if they think they know how. They might kill someone with their efforts.

kaymin

evolving_doors wrote: »

His poster is saying he got the experiments done for him.
That's against the guidelines.



Although maybe he was 'capable' of doing them... but just outsourced them.

Just the MRSA experiments, not the Staph aureus The guidelines also state you should only do the experiments yourself if they are not dangerous. Also guidelines by definition are not rules.

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

More hypothetical waffle.

Just to explain it in simple terms for you:

This is the sentence from the BTYSE guidelines on Data Collection quoted above:

"These should only be used if they are relevant to your research and if you are capable of doing and understanding them yourself."

In the image in a previous post ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105872528&postcount=483 ), the project panel states that testing was done in CIT and that medical scientists did the testing in CUH.

The word "and" in the sentence quoted makes this a potential problem if specialist knowledge and expertise beyond the entrant's level was used and required. It doesn't matter if he could simply understand the experiements and their results. He also has to be capable of doing them himself.

Regards...jmcc

kaymin

deezell wrote: »

Most people have potatoes in their press but that doesn't mean they are allowed to brew up poteen, even if they think they know how. They might kill someone with their efforts.

Well it's a mute point anyway since he acknowledged the MRSA tests were done by medical scientists i.e. full disclosure / acknowledgement was made of the outside assistance he received in line with the rules

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

Just the MRSA experiments, not the Staph aureus The guidelines also state you should only do the experiments yourself if they are not dangerous. Also guidelines by definition are not rules.

The poster states that work was done in CUH and Cork IT and we've previously seen in news reports and from interviews that UCC was also involved. That is significant support which would be completely unavailable to most schools.

The rules going forward need to change.

jmcc

Muahahaha wrote: »

I thought the Computer Science kids that won before were breaking new ground, no? How was the judging not up to speed?

If you read the coverage in the media by people with no expertise in Computer Science and Technology ("technology journalists"), perhaps. Some of the projects on Cryptography and Programming seemed clearly beyond the expertise of the judges. I think that they had to call in some chap from the late and unlamented Media Lab Europe on the web browser project that won it a few years ago. Crypto tends to be a very specialised field and some of the rather grand claims made would need to be evaluated by specialists (Cryppies) rather than ordinary college lecturers with no specialist expertise in the field.

Regards...jmcc

kaymin

jmcc wrote: »

Just to explain it in simple terms for you:

This is the sentence from the BTYSE guidelines on Data Collection quoted above:

"These should only be used if they are relevant to your research and if you are capable of doing and understanding them yourself."

In the image in a previous post ( https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105872528&postcount=483 ), the project panel states that testing was done in CIT and that medical scientists did the testing in CUH.

The word "and" in the sentence quoted makes this a potential problem if specialist knowledge and expertise beyond the entrant's level was used and required. It doesn't matter if he could simply understand the experiements and their results. He also has to be capable of doing them himself.

Regards...jmcc

Guidelines are not rules.

If there is a rule that mirrors that language then it is problematic as it refers to whether he is capable of doing the experiments not whether he actually did the experiments. Who is to say he is not capable (with mothers supervision for example) but chose not to because of the risks.

We don't know whether or not he understands the experiments - all we have to go on is the judges assessment of him.

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

Guidelines are not rules.

If there is a breach of the guidelines for an unfair advantage, then it taints the results. That's the problem the BTYSE has to deal with now. It is obvious that there is a lot of spin going on to distract from the situation.

Regards...jmcc

Roger Hassenforder

kaymin wrote: »

More hypothetical waffle. A quick visit to the HSE site indicates most people have MRSA on their skin and healthy people would generally not fall ill from it. Its the old, weak and already ill that have a vulnerability to it. So there seems little reason to think he could not do the experiments himself. Does anyone have hard evidence to the contrary?

If you could be so good as to link it we can discuss. But dont confuse S.aureus with MRSA.
From a quick look at the HSE site indicates you're wrong as fcuk, but clinging desparately to your anchored position. Can you stop with the bu11sh1t science.

Several people here are telling you otherwise, people claiming qualifications, expertise. Im long out of the micro area myself, but only lvl 8 micro. We werent left near it.
MRSA is dangerous stuff. Most people dont have it on their skin. About 3% are carriers
A lot have S.aureus, about 30-40% IIRC.

But MRSA is not the same as S.aureus

jmayo

_Dara_ wrote: »

Getting medical scientists at a hospital laboratory working for you is absolutely not something any secondary student could rock up and organise. There is actually a good bit of work required to carry out the experiments required (I know, having worked in a lab and witnessed the time and resources used). I would really question their time and resources being used to help a secondary student out with a project.

First it appeared as if he had used UCC and it's labs and then it turns out it was labs in CUH with their staff it appears.
I know it is a teaching hospital, but as Martina1991 pointed out how the feck is a 2nd level student given access to their resources.

Martina1991 wrote: »

I work in a hospital lab. I've never heard or seen of any second level student being allowed to use our facilities. There are guarda clearance and patient confidentiality barriers to overcome. The only student projects allowed are the 4th year undergrads or M.Sc.

Aren't resources tight enough in our hospitals without helping kids out with their experiments. :rolleyes:

kaymin wrote: »

More hypothetical waffle. A quick visit to the HSE site indicates most people have MRSA on their skin and healthy people would generally not fall ill from it. Its the old, weak and already ill that have a vulnerability to it. So there seems little reason to think he could not do the experiments himself. Does anyone have hard evidence to the contrary?

The only one waffling here is you.

There could be a uranium deposit under your back garden, that is not the same as playing with enriched uranium in a controlled environment.

BTW doesn't he specifically state the testing against MRSA was done by CUH medical scientists?

kaymin wrote: »

I cant imagine the level of training needed is extensive - clean the utensils after use? Can't be difficult. It seems to me this 'MRSA is highly dangerous' angle is being used to unfairly justify the claim he couldn't do the experiments himself.

You really are talking through a certain orifice.
People with lab experience and knowledge in this area have told you the operating principles yet you persist with your waffle.
MRSA is a controlled pathogen.
Even I know that and I am an engineer.:rolleyes:

kaymin wrote: »

I didn't say they were meaningless. What level is MRSA? Does his poster confirm he didn't deal with MRSA or was that others reading into something that is actually incorrect. I'm wary of your claim he wouldn't be allowed near anything above level 1 - even without supervision from his mother?

There's alot of assumptions being made to disparage this lad and many reasons why claims such as yours could be wrong.

No you are the one making the big assumptions and have persisted throughout the course of this thread even in the face of evidence provided by multiple other sources.

kaymin wrote: »

I'm not entrenched at all. In fact I haven't made any claims about whether his project is legit or not. I look at other people's arguments such as yours and find there's holes allover.

As far as I recall the project poster referred to the fact that the experiments were conducted in UCC - that does not indicate they were done by someone else - it's posters such as yourself that's making that leap. Maybe you should look at your own biases.

No there real holes are in this guys project.

FACT 1:
he did a project very very similar to that supervised by his mother in 2007.

FACT 2:
his project is not groundbreaking and results are not surprising as claimed by the most prominent judge in this category of project.

FACT 3:
The prominent judge in this project category operates in the same city, the same college and institutions as are linked to this project and there is very good chance that the judge knows the parent of this kid who is involved in those institutions.

FACT 4:
There is no way this kid, or any kid, would be allowed use university or hospital resources to work with
(a) controlled pathogens
(b) or high end specialised scientific equipment.

The kid even admits on his poster testing was carried out by medical scientists.

_Dara_

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you could be so good as to link it we can discuss. But dont confuse S.aureus with MRSA.
From a quick look at the HSE site indicates you're wrong as fcuk, but clinging desparately to your anchored position. Can you stop with the bu11sh1t science.

Several people here are telling you otherwise, people claiming qualifications, expertise. Im long out of the micro area myself, but only lvl 8 micro. We werent left near it.
MRSA is dangerous stuff. Most people dont have it on their skin. About 3% are carriers
A lot have S.aureus, about 30-40% IIRC.

But MRSA is not the same as S.aureus

Well, MRSA is S. aureus, a strain that is resistant to methicillin.

tritium

So the winner is the son of a respected academic. Was given access to third level facilities that most other entrants could only dream about. The award is then decided by a panel that includes other academics, who would likely be aware of these points. And it’s not the first time there’s been this concern about a winner of the competition

Somehow it doesn’t really seem like a level playing field. The integrity of the competition is at least open to question given the usual loveable old Irish failings are at least worthy of being asked about here. It could be argued that it’s about instilling a love of science in kids, but I’m not sure many young kids would be too impressed about putting in the effort only to lose out to someone who was given a huge advantage from the start.

Then again, it’s kind of a microcosm of how we do things in this country.

kaymin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If you could be so good as to link it we can discuss. But dont confuse S.aureus with MRSA.
From a quick look at the HSE site indicates you're wrong as fcuk, but clinging desparately to your anchored position. Can you stop with the bu11sh1t science.

Several people here are telling you otherwise, people claiming qualifications, expertise. Im long out of the micro area myself, but only lvl 8 micro. We werent left near it.
MRSA is dangerous stuff. Most people dont have it on their skin. About 3% are carriers
A lot have S.aureus, about 30-40% IIRC.

But MRSA is not the same as S.aureus

http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/M/Methicillin-resistant-staphylococcus-aureus/

'Most people with MRSA carry the germ harmlessly and have no ill effects.'

'MRSA stands for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus or SA) is a bacteria or germ which many people carry in their nose or on their skin.'

cookie1977

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, MRSA is S. aureus, a strain that is resistant to methicillin.

S. aureus will not kill you but under the right conditions MRSA will. They are different.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

S. aureus will not kill you but under the right conditions MRSA will. They are different.

There is no indication that he did not complete the experiments on the S aureus - at least his project poster implies he did these experiments but is clear he didn't do the tests on the MRSA which was fully acknowledged (which may not be in compliance with guidelines but seemingly is compliant with the rules).

So on the face of it he did nothing wrong.

_Dara_

cookie1977 wrote: »

S. aureus will not kill you but under the right conditions MRSA will. They are different.

MRSA is a particular strain of S. aureus. That’s what the SA part of MRSA stands for. There are many strains of S. aureus.

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

There is no indication that he did not complete the experiments on the S aureus - at least his project poster implies he did these experiments....

So on the face of it he did nothing wrong.

Have you a link to that poster as the image I posted earlier shows no evidence of what you say.

cookie1977

_Dara_ wrote: »

MRSA is a particular strain of S. aureus. That’s what the SA part of MRSA stands for. There are many strains of S. aureus.

Absolutely but back in the day when MRSA was first identified hospitals screened patients for MRSA in particular and separated them away from the general pop. who would have had, lets call it regular, SA. They are different.

http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)60578-4/pdf

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

Have you a link to that poster as the image I posted earlier shows no evidence of what you say.

I was looking at the poster you posted. It states that the experiments on SA were done in CIT without referring to who they were done by (which implies it was his own work) unlike the experiments on MRSA which he acknowledged were done by medical scientists in CU.

_Dara_

cookie1977 wrote: »

Absolutely but back in the day when MRSA was first identified hospitals screened patients for MRSA in particular and separated them away from the general pop. who would have had, lets call it regular, SA. They are different.

http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(14)60578-4/pdf

Obviously it differs in that it has acquired resistance to antibiotics but that doesn’t mean it’s not S. aureus. It's a potentially lethal strain of it.