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

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

It is common for students to use third level institutions as part of their project - I know a science lecturer in UL that has confirmed as much as have a number of other posters to this thread.

It is not common and that is the issue. Third level institutions cannot help all schools so it ends up being a selection process which makes it very unfair. If they then have knowledgeable parents in the field and in the third level this gives you another boost up. It's the young scientist competition not parents and third level. The rules need to change or be made clearer as they are with the European equivalent posted earlier.

Roger Hassenforder

kaymin wrote: »

So he won fairly in accordance with rules - so stop with the witch-hunt.

If the rules aren't fit for purpose then change the rules.

Everything else in your post is conjecture and supposition.

It is common for students to use third level institutions as part of their project - I know a science lecturer in UL that has confirmed as much as have a number of other posters to this thread.

Which part was conjecture?
Forgive me, after your performane in micro, if i take your inputs with a pinch of sodium chloride.
(Salt)

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

It is not common and that is the issue. Third level institutions cannot help all schools so it ends up being a selection process which makes it very unfair. If they then have knowledgeable parents in the field and in the third level this gives you another boost up. It's the young scientist competition not parents and third level. The rules need to change or be made clearer as they are with the European equivalent posted earlier.

It is not a selection process - you just have to ask for their help. I expect most projects don't need the input of third level institutions as the volume of requests doesn't seem too great to handle.

Just to add, the BTYSC anticipates the use of third level institutions or even pharma companies by competitors:

'Where experimental /research work is conducted by the students themselves, or on their behalf, in a laboratory that is external to their school (e.g. in a local university, a hospital or an industry) then that work should be clearly identified and acknowledged within the project report book and presentation.'

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

so stop with the witch-hunt.

The well known "Leave Britney alone!" methodology? Very Scientific. There are people on the thread and on Social Media who seem a lot more qualified than you or me to evaluate this project and they have raised points where there are flaws in the whole BTYSE story. It really makes a mockery of all the other entrants who didn't have Third Level help and Third Level institutes doing experiements for them.

Regards...jmcc

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

I suppose the omission of the mothers Title and Surname in the picture celebrating her his win at the RDS that appeared in the Evening Echo was coincidence!

It probably wasn't an attempt to smokescreen who she was, the connections she had or the chance of anybody twigging the relevance of her earlier publication?

the closest I saw on RTE was them saying his mother was a microbiologist....go on???

Kurtosis

I think the organisers of the BTYSE need to reflect on the current rules, what the competition has become, and what should it be aiming to achieve. I would hope the values of the competition are to instill an interest in STEM in as many schoolchildren as possible, and improving understanding of the scientific method and science in general. I am not sure the competition in its current form necessarily achieves this.

I think those claiming that innovation would be stymied by restricting access to methods/equipment not available in schools are incorrect. The emphasis should not be on making scientific breakthroughs. These seldom occur in third-level and industrial scientific/medical research, it's completely unrealistic to expect teenagers to achieve this. What should be encouraged is:

• Reading about previous research in a topic area
• Formulating a feasible, realistic, and interesting research question that builds on previous work
• Designing an experiment that can test their hypothesis and planning their study and analysis
• Conducting their procedures/data collection to maximise reliability and validity and minimise bias
• Analysing their results and summarising these using tables/figures
• Writing up their research report and understanding the importance of open science and transparency

These are the important scientific principles that the competition should be trying to spread. You don't, and shouldn't, need high-tech equipment in order to learn about and do good science.

cookie1977

Kurtosis wrote: »

I think the organisers of the BTYSE need to reflect on the current rules, what the competition has become, and what should it be aiming to achieve. I would hope the values of the competition are to instill an interest in STEM in as many schoolchildren as possible, and improving understanding of the scientific method and science in general. I am not sure the competition in its current form necessarily achieves this.

I think those claiming that innovation would be stymied by restricting access to methods/equipment not available in schools are incorrect. The emphasis should not be on making scientific breakthroughs. These seldom occur in third-level and industrial scientific/medical research, it's completely unrealistic to expect teenagers to achieve this. What should be encouraged is:

• Reading about previous research in a topic area
• Formulating a feasible, realistic, and interesting research question that builds on previous work
• Designing an experiment that can test their hypothesis and planning their study and analysis
• Conducting their procedures/data collection to maximise reliability and validity and minimise bias
• Analysing their results and summarising these using tables/figures
• Writing up their research report and understanding the importance of open science and transparency

These are the important scientific principles that the competition should be trying to spread. You don't, and shouldn't, need high-tech equipment in order to learn about and do good science.

Here, here!

Martina1991

Kurtosis wrote:

I think those claiming that innovation would be stymied by restricting access to methods/equipment not available in schools are incorrect. The emphasis should not be on making scientific breakthroughs. These seldom occur in third-level and industrial scientific/medical research, it's completely unrealistic to expect teenagers to achieve this.

Agree with all of this.

I had a look on the BTYSOTY Twitter page. There was more projects that won prizes that also had help from 3rd level institutes.

One in particular using DNA sequencing in eosophageal cancer.
I couldn't make out some of the poster so i couldn't see where it was carried out. But come on.

What teenager comes up with a project in the field of cancer research.

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

It is not a selection process - you just have to ask for their help. I expect most projects don't need the input of third level institutions as the volume of requests doesn't seem too great to handle.

Just to add, the BTYSC anticipates the use of third level institutions or even pharma companies by competitors:

'Where experimental /research work is conducted by the students themselves, or on their behalf, in a laboratory that is external to their school (e.g. in a local university, a hospital or an industry) then that work should be clearly identified and acknowledged within the project report book and presentation.'

which he clearly did, not just to the judges but to the general public- It’s clearly written on his display poster

fly_agaric

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

Muahahaha wrote: »

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

Don't know the details, so didn't respond to that first post, but I would take what gets printed in the media regarding any research, even results of a project in a children's science exhibition with a large grain of salt.

If it makes the papers, it always seem to be reported as a "cure for the common cold" when truly groundbreaking results in any field are very rare. They are unlikely to come from a teenager working on their very first real piece of research - regardless of how intelligent, knowledgeable and hard working they are [and how much assistance they receive!]

At least the resources are quite cheap and widespread now and should be available to all students who enter a maths, stats or computer science based project (whatever about what the judges may make of the content of the project!).

evolving_doors

Deleted User wrote: »

which he clearly did, not just to the judges but to the general public- It’s clearly written on his display poster

Well we don't know what was in his project report book.
Also acknowledgements could be include in the verbal part when he presents to the judges/piblic. I'd assume that's part of the 'presentation'.

jmcc

fly_agaric wrote: »

Don't know the details, so didn't respond to that first post, but I would take what gets printed in the media regarding any research, even results of a project in a children's science exhibition with a large grain of salt.

When the judges run across a complex project in CS or Cryptography, (and perhaps in other fields), they generally have to bring in external people. They did this with Sarah Flannery's project and that web browser project a few years ago.

Most journalists who write about Technology have no background or expertise in Technology and generally work from press releases. A few of the Science journalists tend to have some background in the field, but with newspapers and the media, it is cheaper to employ a newbie Arts/journalism graduate than someone with relevant expertise. This is why a lot of STEM reporting, in general, in the non-specialist media is of such low reliability.

Regards...jmcc

kaymin

evolving_doors wrote: »

Well we don't know what was in his project report book.
Also acknowledgements could be include in the verbal part when he presents to the judges/piblic. I'd assume that's part of the 'presentation'.

The acknowledgement of the use of UCC medical scientists to perform the tests on the MRSA strains is clearly stated on his project poster as is the reference to the use of CIT facilities for testing the normal SA strains.

kaymin

Kurtosis wrote: »

I think those claiming that innovation would be stymied by restricting access to methods/equipment not available in schools are incorrect. The emphasis should not be on making scientific breakthroughs.

No one has said the emphasis should be on making scientific breakthroughs but to suggest restricting access to equipment / third level institutions won't stymie the potential for achieving a breakthrough is nonsense.

Also continuing to allow students access third level institutions and industry participants will provide them with real life examples of what it is like to pursue a scientific career which will better inform them when making their CAO choices.

Access to third level / industry participants is open to all participants. It is not restricted to those with the contacts. The competition rules explicitly anticipate their use by entrants. This year's winner availed of it, acknowledged his use of them. He has done nothing wrong in this regard but most posters to this thread can't accept that because of their bias.

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

He has done nothing wrong in this regard but most posters to this thread can't accept that because of their bias.

Explain bias there as I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

Explain bias there as I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Let me pose it this way, can you acknowledge that this year's winner did nothing wrong by using UCC and CIT facilities when completing his project?

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

Let me pose it this way, can you acknowledge that this year's winner did nothing wrong by using UCC and CIT facilities when completing his project?

No, no you said bias and I'd like you to explain it. You said it so you know what you mean, yes?

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

No, no you said bias and I'd like you to explain it. You said it so you know what you mean, yes?

Yes, I'm demonstrating your bias by your refusal to answer my question. No better explanation is needed.

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, I'm demonstrating your bias by your refusal to answer my question. No better explanation is needed.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word bias.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word bias.

If you say so. Why not answer the question? You can't bring yourself to do it - it's pathetic.

weldoninhio

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, I'm demonstrating your bias by your refusal to answer my question. No better explanation is needed.

I don’t think the word bias means what you think it means.

kaymin

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don’t think the word bias means what you think it means.

Lads do you really need things spelled out for you:

1.
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

You are unwilling to give credit to the winner for using CIT and UCC in way that is in full accordance with the rules of the competition because it doesn't suit your narrative. Worse you use the fact that he used CIT and UCC as evidence that he somehow cheated the 1000s of other competitors.

Kurtosis

kaymin wrote: »

No one has said the emphasis should be on making scientific breakthroughs but to suggest restricting access to equipment / third level institutions won't stymie the potential for achieving a breakthrough is nonsense.

But it shouldn't be about achieving breakthroughs. Progress in science is almost wholly due to marginal improvements/findings. It's an iterative process, giant leaps forward in progress or understanding are very rare.

Also continuing to allow students access third level institutions and industry participants will provide them with real life examples of what it is like to pursue a scientific career which will better inform them when making their CAO choices.

Access to third level / industry participants is open to all participants. It is not restricted to those with the contacts. The competition rules explicitly anticipate their use by entrants. This year's winner availed of it, acknowledged his use of them. He has done nothing wrong in this regard but most posters to this thread can't accept that because of their bias.

How much experience do students gain from access to high-tech equipment? They're unlikely to have identified a particular analytical method as most suitable for their study, unlikely be able to use the equipment themselves, or understand/interpret the output to answer their research question.

It's facetious to suggest that access to these facilities is open to all participants. If all individuals/teams submitting a chemistry project decided they needed to use gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy, would they be accommodated?

kaymin

Kurtosis wrote: »

But it shouldn't be about achieving breakthroughs. Progress in science is almost wholly due to marginal improvements/findings. It's an iterative process, giant leaps forward in progress or understanding are very rare.

This is a strawmans argument. I clearly stated it wasn't about achieving breakthrough. You conveniently ignore what I was countering i.e. your claim that restricting access to third level institutions would not stymie to potential to achieving a breakthrough

Kurtosis wrote: »

How much experience do students gain from access to high-tech equipment? They're unlikely to have identified a particular analytical method as most suitable for their study, unlikely be able to use the equipment themselves, or understand/interpret the output to answer their research question.

You need to broaden your mind. The students prepare the samples for testing, learn from the lab technicians, experience what it is like to work in a lab, have the opportunity to ask lab technicians about their work/career etc All of which will help them understand what it is like to have a career in science and whether it is a path they wish to pursue.

Kurtosis wrote: »

It's facetious to suggest that access to these facilities is open to all participants. If all individuals/teams submitting a chemistry project decided they needed to use gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy, would they be accommodated?

So, let's pick a scarce piece of equipment and make a stupid argument. How many competitors pursued a topic that required use of this piece of equipment in this years YS competition?

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

You conveniently ignore what I was countering i.e. your claim that restricting access to third level institutions would not stymie to potential to achieving a breakthrough

And you conveniently ignore explaining what you mean by most posters bias:

kaymin wrote: »

He has done nothing wrong in this regard but most posters to this thread can't accept that because of their bias.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

And you conveniently ignore explaining what you mean by most posters bias:

Does post #627 not explain it for you?

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

Does post #627 not explain it for you?

No it doesn't.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

No it doesn't.

lol

Kurtosis

kaymin wrote: »

This is a strawmans argument. I clearly stated it wasn't about achieving breakthrough. You conveniently ignore what I was countering i.e. your claim that restricting access to third level institutions would not stymie to potential to achieving a breakthrough

How many scientific breakthroughs have come about from BTYSE entrants with access to third-level research facilities?

You need to broaden your mind. The students prepare the samples for testing, learn from the lab technicians, experience what it is like to work in a lab, have the opportunity to ask lab technicians about their work/career etc All of which will help them understand what it is like to have a career in science and whether it is a path they wish to pursue.

If the BTYSE is supposed to be about work experience for students, that's well and good. However I don't think that's what it should be about. They should be developing an understanding of the scientific method (i.e. identifying a knowledge gap, formulating a research question, proper design of an experiment, selection of appropriate controls). Jumping in at the deep end to be shown around a lab, see some new-fangled equipment being operated, and being handed some difficult to interpret results doesn't do that.

So, let's pick a scarce piece of equipment and make a stupid argument. How many competitors pursued a topic that required use of this piece of equipment in this years YS competition?

I don't know to be honest, and I could have chosen any piece of equipment not available in schools. That's my point, if access to third-level facilities is supposedly "open to all participants", what happens if all participants want to access these facilities?