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

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

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.

And you don't see any conflict with this?
"These should only be used if they are relevant to your research and if you are capable of doing and understanding them yourself."

Regards...jmcc

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

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.

Implies?

kaymin

jmcc wrote: »

And you don't see any conflict with this?
"These should only be used if they are relevant to your research and if you are capable of doing and understanding them yourself."

Regards...jmcc

Well yes there is a possible conflict but as I said before this is a guideline not a rule:


'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.'

You might say I'm splitting hairs - but if you want to have a rule it needs to be clear and unambiguous. Guidelines don't need to be as rigid as they are not enforceable.

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

Implies?

Yes, if you state your project involved doing x, y and z then it's reasonable to assume you did the X, y and z unless otherwise stated.

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

Yes, if you state your project involved doing x, y and z then it's reasonable to assume you did the X, y and z unless otherwise stated.

In Science there's a little thing called "Proof". It is not enough, as with less intellectually rigorous subjects like the Arts, to simply claim something.

Regards...jmcc

Roger Hassenforder

_Dara_ wrote: »

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

Not all SA is MRSA.
All MRSA is SA!

Roger Hassenforder

kaymin wrote: »

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.

'

Still see your head!
From your latest link:
"Most people that carry it, do so harmlessly.
Many people carry SA."


Very different from your original claim you were pulled up on:

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?

And you're accusing people of waffling....

_Dara_

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not all SA is MRSA.
All MRSA is SA!

Exactly! That’s what I should have said, wha’?

kaymin

jmcc wrote: »

In Science there's a little thing called "Proof". It is not enough, as with less intellectually rigorous subjects like the Arts, to simply claim something.

Regards...jmcc

Tell that to Einstein

kaymin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Still see your head!
From your latest link:
"Most people that carry it, do so harmlessly.
Many people carry SA."


Very different from your original claim you were pulled up on:



And you're accusing people of waffling....

So I used the word most instead of many! - it doesn't change the point that MRSA is commonly found on the skin of people and poses no risk to most people.

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

Tell that to Einstein

I suggest that you watch this clip on Youtube and reconsider:

kaymin

jmcc wrote: »

I suggest that you watch this clip on Youtube and reconsider:

Einstein was a theorist, it was left up to others to prove his theories. You seem to suggest theories don't qualify as science,ðŸ˜

Anyway this is off topic

Roger Hassenforder

kaymin wrote: »

So I used the word most instead of many! - it doesn't change the point that MRSA is commonly found on the skin of people and poses no risk to most people.

Mother of god, are you not mortified yet with the embarrassment.

You're accusing people of waffling, obviously with little to no micro knowledge, yet here you are arguing microbiology with microbiologists.

Theres a big epidemiological difference between most people carrying a pathogen, and the (few!! - 3%) people that carry it, do so harmlessly. Its the kind of stuff you learn. In microbiology.

MRSA poses a risk to all people!
(Risk assessment doesnt seem to be your forte either!)

kaymin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

MRSA poses a risk to all people!
(Risk assessment doesnt seem to be your forte either!)

I'll quote again the HSE website:

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

At this stage this is all irrelevant since the lad didn't claim to do the MRSA experiments and there's no rule that he has broken as a result.

_Dara_

kaymin wrote: »

So I used the word most instead of many! - it doesn't change the point that MRSA is commonly found on the skin of people and poses no risk to most people.

Harmless strains of SA are commonly found on people’s skin. MRSA isn’t, only in a small minority of cases.

What you linked there above isn’t saying that most people carry it. It’s saying that of the people that do, for most there are no ill-effects. The rest don’t carry it because it’s outcompeted by commensal bacteria.

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

I'll quote again the HSE website:

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

Yes but they're not growing it in huge quantities in a lab as previously mentioned. Grown.

jmcc

kaymin wrote: »

Einstein was a theorist, it was left up to others to prove his theories. You seem to suggest theories don't qualify as science,ðŸ˜

Anyway this is off topic

Perhaps you really should watch some more of Feyman's lecture to understand why one doesn't "prove" a theory. It would be more enlightening than spending time on this thread waffling.

Regards...jmcc

kaymin

_Dara_ wrote: »

Harmless strains of SA are commonly found on people’s skin. MRSA isn’t, only in a small minority of cases.

What you linked there above isn’t saying that most people carry it. It’s saying that of the people that do, for most there are no ill-effects. The rest don’t carry it because it’s outcompeted by commensal bacteria.

Fine but all this talk of MRSA is a red herring as regardless the lad has not broken any rules in relation to the MRSA experiments.

evolving_doors

kaymin wrote: »

I'll quote again the HSE website:

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

At this stage this is all irrelevant since the lad didn't claim to do the MRSA experiments and there's no rule that he has broken as a result.

About 60% of folk carry the Herpes Simplex Virus (many probably dont even realise). Doesn't mean you can jump into a lab and start juggling with it.

Roger Hassenforder

kaymin wrote: »

I'll quote again the HSE website:

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

At this stage this is all irrelevant since the lad didn't claim to do the MRSA experiments and there's no rule that he has broken as a result.

You can continue to quote the HSE, but please note your quoted text does not support your claim! In any way, shape or form. No how many times you reference it.

Its very clear you have no idea what you are saying.
Nor do you understand what we're telling you.
Best we move on, its embarrassing.


Back to the young fella and his project.

evolving_doors

kaymin wrote: »

Fine but all this talk of MRSA is a red herring as regardless the lad has not broken any rules in relation to the MRSA experiments.

Have you got a link to the BTYS rules?

NeitherJohn

kaymin wrote: »

Fine but all this talk of MRSA is a red herring as regardless the lad has not broken any rules in relation to the MRSA experiments.

If a scientist did some research that closely resembled another body of work but did not credit the original body of work, it's extremely unprofessional and against researcher standard of conduct.

They'd likely be blacklisted from scientific journals and conferences. It's just not the nice thing to do.

kaymin

evolving_doors wrote: »

Have you got a link to the BTYS rules?

http://btyoungscientist.com/rules/

Gadgetman496

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You can continue to quote the HSE, but please note your quoted text does not support your claim! In any way, shape or form. No how many times you reference it.

Its very clear you have no idea what you are saying.
Nor do you understand what we're telling you.
Best we move on, its embarrassing.


Back to the young fellas mother and her project.

FYP

Roger Hassenforder

So lets be kind and say he didnt "break the rules" per se.
He merely refracted/adapted/applied them "slightly". And in a manner leading to disquiet.


So the winning project, is effectively an old project the winners mother supervised some undergrads back in 2007(no doubt using public money, and also no doubt some kudos/acclaim derived, conferences attended, papers presented etc. on public money) , changed a variable, and where the analytical work of the winning project was outsourced to a local institution (again using public money).
Luckily the judge was a colleague of his mothers.
€7k, TVM.

Its a fricking joke.
How were BTYS caught napping so badly this year.
They spat in the face of every kid teacher and parent who entered honestly and in the spirit of a competition.

Roger Hassenforder

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

FYP

Brilliant!
Well played.

kaymin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So lets be kind and say he didnt "break the rules" per se.

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.

JMNolan

The funny thing is that any scientific finding or research should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, I would argue that scrutiny is absolutely integrate to science yet there are plenty people on this thread crying foul because the winning project is being scrutinized.

jmcc

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Luckily the judge was a colleague of his mothers.

This really looks like a mess for BTYSE.

Regards...jmcc

Gadgetman496

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?