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

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

What a revelation. Is this another strawman argument?

I must have missed in that article where it said multiple third level institutes/universities and a Hospital can run tests for you?

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

I must have missed in that article where it said multiple third level institutes/universities and a Hospital can run tests for you?

'maybe an industry lab or university can run tests for you' wasn't clear enough for you?

Or the rules of the competition?:

'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.'

cookie1977

kaymin wrote: »

'maybe an industry lab or university can run tests for you' wasn't clear enough for you?

Or the rules of the competition?:

'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.'

I think my win at all costs comment from earlier is very apt. I can imagine you as a parent on the sidelines of a match shouting "encouragement" to your kids.

I'd recommend this book for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Tiger_Mother

kaymin

cookie1977 wrote: »

I think my win at all costs comment from earlier is very apt. I can imagine you as a parent on the sidelines of a match shouting "encouragement" to your kids.

I'd recommend this book for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Tiger_Mother

Interesting, i expect you were one of these readers:

'Many readers missed the supposed irony and self-deprecating humor in the title and the piece itself and instead believed that Chua was advocating the "superiority" of a particular, very strict, ethnically defined approach to parenting.'

weldoninhio

kaymin wrote: »

So you need to have done TY in order to know something about it?:rolleyes:

Well i'm guessing you didn't do it and you don't seem to have a clue about it.

"Aren't competitors generally transition year students i.e. they don't have regular school hours?"

granturismo

kaymin wrote: »

...

'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.'

I wasnt aware of this.

kaymin

granturismo wrote: »

I wasnt aware of this.

Great, my work is done here. I'll leave on a high.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991

kaymin wrote:

'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.'

So in theory, a secondary school student could;
A: Come up with a project (on their own or with the help of a professional in that field), and
B: Outsource professionals to carry out the tests if they are not permitted to do so.

Then analyse the results, write the report (acknowledging outside help) and win the prize.

granturismo

kaymin wrote: »

Great, my work is done here. I'll leave on a high.

I was acknowledging your reference. I guess third level institutions didnt carry out analyses for a significant number of BT YS projects and if there was an influx of requests, they couldnt all be accommodated.

mariaalice

If you read Reality Is Not What It Seems by Carlo Rovelli which is as much about the philosophy of science as its about actual science, Im paraphrasing a bit but he conjectures : its not just the hard science after all you can find doctoral student to do the maths and science underlining the theory, but the real skill and genius is the idea and the deep understanding of the concept the building on someone else work and seeing with your minds eye what others did not see.

Mardy Bum

mariaalice wrote: »

If you read Reality Is Not What It Seems by Carlo Rovelli which is as much about the philosophy of science as its about actual science, Im paraphrasing a bit but he conjectures : its not just the hard science after all you can find doctoral student to do the maths and science underlining the theory, but the real skill and genius is the idea and the deep understanding of the concept the building on someone else work and seeing with your minds eye what others did not see.

I think the common thought is that he didn't see any idea. He was given an idea and then had his mother ask lots of professionals to do the experiments. Maybe he collated the results.

cookie1977

BT still ignoring the issues/concerns and preferring to attack any dissenting voices.
https://twitter.com/PriscillaORegan/status/954387636633915392

How hard is it for them to admit that perhaps an updating/clarification of the rules might be needed or even a worthwhile exercise? Must resist change at all costs!

Roger Hassenforder

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I was right all along!

The mother of all Freudian slips.

mariaalice

The simple solution is that all project that has support from a third level institution should have an addendum stating the level of support they revived.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the current winner adhered to all rules. I think efforts are best directed at moving on from YS 2018 and focusing the attention on an overhaul of the rules and guidance for 2019- it also takes the "personal" element out of the discussion - i.e. attack the process, not the individuals that adhered to the process.

While I'm not in agreement that doing such work high-level complex research is what YS is all about- but if no rule are broken it's not a reflection of the student or students, it's a reflection of the YS process.

cookie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the current winner adhered to all rules. I think efforts are best directed at moving on from YS 2018 and focusing the attention on an overhaul of the rules and guidance for 2019- it also takes the "personal" element out of the discussion - i.e. attack the process, not the individuals that adhered to the process.

While I'm not in agreement that doing such work high-level complex research is what YS is all about- but if no rule are broken it's not a reflection of the student or students, it's a reflection of the YS process.

The problem is they look like they're trying to bury all criticism/negative press. Even the IT came out with another fluff piece with no balance ta all.:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/young-scientist-fallout-why-online-debate-got-wrong-end-of-stick-1.3361623

If they do nothing then I will feel very sorry for any winners next year if they get similar levels of assistance. There will only be increased condemnation of the process. The process has to be fair and there are differences across the country in levels of access to "help". It is not a level playing field in anyway.

cookie1977

cookie1977 wrote: »

The problem is they look like they're trying to bury all criticism/negative press. Even the IT came out with another fluff piece with no balance ta all.:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/young-scientist-fallout-why-online-debate-got-wrong-end-of-stick-1.3361623

If they do nothing then I will feel very sorry for any winners next year if they get similar levels of assistance. There will only be increased condemnation of the process. The process has to be fair and there are differences across the country in levels of access to "help". It is not a level playing field in anyway.

I don't view it that they're trying to "bury" the criticism but I'm also acutely aware that I don't hold as strong a negative view on this year's winner as some other posters and social media commentators do.

"Fairness" is never going to be achieved simply because society isn't "fair"- so don't hold your breath on that one- "more balanced", "greater opportunities for skilled assistance from 3rd level institutions", " a separate category for the "super-intelligent or "heavily supported"? - might be the best you can achieve.

I do think it's unfair this years' winner has taken the brunt of the criticism by people who aren't familiar with either the detail of his work, and the YS process.
I learned a little more about his project from reading that IT article and it truly was exceptional work. His inspiration is firmly rooted in the botanical (hence his Grandfather acknowledgment) not in laboratory testing - which he's clearly documented anyway.


Meehan’s research was not sent off to be done in a laboratory by others, he said. Instead, he used high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry equipment at UCC, having been shown how the equipment worked.
His work on bacteria was his, although he was not able to work directly on the infectious MRSA bug. What really impressed judges was his referencing of other literature, and his highlighting of differences with his results, said the UCD academic.
“There was a surprising amount of self-criticism and he does point out the limitations of his work. Something very interesting was his combining of two things – traditional herbalism and science,” Ó Cróinín adds.

cookie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't view it that they're trying to "bury" the criticism but I'm also acutely aware that I don't hold as strong a negative view on this year's winner as some other posters and social media commentators do.

"Fairness" is never going to be achieved simply because society isn't "fair"- so don't hold your breath on that one- "more balanced", "greater opportunities for skilled assistance from 3rd level institutions", " a separate category for the "super-intelligent or "heavily supported"?

I do think it's unfair this years' winner has taken the brunt of the criticism by people who aren't familiar with either the detail of his work, and the YS process.
I learned a little more about his project from reading that IT article and it truly was exceptional work. His inspiration is firmly rooted in the botanical (hence his Grandfather acknowledgment) not in laboratory testing - which he's clearly documented anyway.


Meehan’s research was not sent off to be done in a laboratory by others, he said. Instead, he used high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry equipment at UCC, having been shown how the equipment worked.
His work on bacteria was his, although he was not able to work directly on the infectious MRSA bug. What really impressed judges was his referencing of other literature, and his highlighting of differences with his results, said the UCD academic.
“There was a surprising amount of self-criticism and he does point out the limitations of his work. Something very interesting was his combining of two things – traditional herbalism and science,” Ó Cróinín adds.

I'm not looking for fairness but certainly equality of opportunity (which isn't the case at present). Just because we cannot achieve fairness doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to try to create an environment more conducive to fairness.

If the European guidelines can be very clear on what is excessive help then why cant the Irish guidelines.

On a separate point this from the article:


Instead, he used high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry equipment at UCC, having been shown how the equipment worked.

is more than very impressive from a 15 year old.

evolving_doors

evolving_doors wrote: »

What was the mother's role?

I've absolutely no idea. Why don't you phone her and ask her?

evolving_doors

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea. Why don't you phone her and ask her?

If he referenced it I wouldn't need to.

cookie1977

cookie1977 wrote: »

I'm not looking for fairness but certainly equality of opportunity (which isn't the case at present). Just because we cannot achieve fairness doesn't mean we shouldn't do something to try to create an environment more conducive to fairness.

If the European guidelines can be very clear on what is excessive help then why cant the Irish guidelines.

On a separate point this from the article:


Instead, he used high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry equipment at UCC, having been shown how the equipment worked.

is more than very impressive from a 15 year old.

I'm certainly in agreement with you around the "fairness" comment and about striving for some form of fairness.

In relation to the chromatography quote, unless you're a judge who has heard and interrogated his presentation (which I assume they do) and read his log notes, really I don't know who else can comment on that.

there's a lot of gifted people out there and while a lot of assistance may have been acquired on this project, it's back to the rules of the current YS - if no rules have been broken then it's about focusing on the process for 2019, not the winner of 2018 if you want to achieve fairness.

evolving_doors

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't view it that they're trying to "bury" the criticism but I'm also acutely aware that I don't hold as strong a negative view on this year's winner as some other posters and social media commentators do.

"Fairness" is never going to be achieved simply because society isn't "fair"- so don't hold your breath on that one- "more balanced", "greater opportunities for skilled assistance from 3rd level institutions", " a separate category for the "super-intelligent or "heavily supported"? - might be the best you can achieve.

I do think it's unfair this years' winner has taken the brunt of the criticism by people who aren't familiar with either the detail of his work, and the YS process.
I learned a little more about his project from reading that IT article and it truly was exceptional work. His inspiration is firmly rooted in the botanical (hence his Grandfather acknowledgment) not in laboratory testing - which he's clearly documented anyway.


Meehan’s research was not sent off to be done in a laboratory by others, he said. Instead, he used high-performance liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometry equipment at UCC, having been shown how the equipment worked.
His work on bacteria was his, although he was not able to work directly on the infectious MRSA bug. What really impressed judges was his referencing of other literature, and his highlighting of differences with his results, said the UCD academic.
“There was a surprising amount of self-criticism and he does point out the limitations of his work. Something very interesting was his combining of two things – traditional herbalism and science,” Ó Cróinín adds.

Like I'm still reading about him doing x,y,z. And that's fine, he broke no rules.

But why not acknowledge the mother.
A few years ago a winner did acknowledge her mother and it was stared in the media that it was her area of expertise.

But the fact that it's the mother's exact field of research, i think, needs mention of acknowledgement! I haven't heard this from him or the media.

Grandfather herbalist deceased!
Mother microbiologist in the lab where he did the experiments!
Grandfather herbalist deceased!
Mother microbiologist in the lab where he did the experiments!

Why omit the mother?

evolving_doors

evolving_doors wrote: »

If he referenced it I wouldn't need to.

How do you know he didn't? Did you read the log notes and all associated materials of the presentation?

cookie1977

cookie1977 wrote: »

If the European guidelines can be very clear on what is excessive help then why cant the Irish guidelines.

.

In my opinion both should match so clearly the winner of the Irish Exhibition automatically qualifies for entry for a European award. I don't see why it shouldn't be the same.

evolving_doors

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you know he didn't? Did you read the log notes and all associated materials of the presentation?

How do you know he did?

Well I know himself and the media took the decision to write her out of the scene.
Why?

jmcc

evolving_doors wrote: »

But why not acknowledge the mother.
A few years ago a winner did acknowledge her mother and it was stared in the media that it was her area of expertise.

Because it raises too many questions about the whole story.

Even the Irish Times was doing its usual snide reference to Twitter/SM commentary about this yesterday.

Regards...jmcc

evolving_doors

evolving_doors wrote: »

How do you know he did?

Well I know himself and the media took the decision to write her out of the scene.
Why?

Ah com'on-That's conspiracy theory territory and it's back to attacking the individual, not the process which i'm not going to engage with.

Now the media are in cahoots with BT- brown envelopes are passed around in Mulligans of Poolbeg st.

Seriously, if you want to continue this hypothesis at least provide fact, not supposition.

jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously, if you want to continue this hypothesis at least provide fact, not supposition.

What journalists who covered this story have a hard Science background with enough knowledge to question the narrative being spun? How many of them are just Arts/Journalism graduates working to a press release?

Regards...jmcc

TheAnalyst_

That irish times piece makes me want to puke. They never address the fact that his is his mothers published research from a decade ago.