D became an Intel STS semifinalist today, will it help her HYPS application?

DEET
Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:05:06 +0000

For both the Intel ISEF and Intel STS, students who don’t win but who know their project was just as good as the project of someone who won, this is good training for life as shown by this example -
The 2000 award of the Nobel Prize in medicine provoked an open letter to the award committee signed by more than 250 neuroscientists. The award went to three researchers for their work on how nerve cells exchange signals, and the Nobel Foundation’s announcement pointed out the relevance of such work for treating Parkinson’s disease and other neurological disorders. However, Oleh Hornykiewicz, who discovered the underlying neurotransmitter deficit in Parkinson’s disease–and designed the treatment still in use today as the gold standard treatment for Parkinson’s–wasn’t included in the award or even mentioned in the accompanying announcement.

With 33 out of 40 of the 2008 Intel STS finalists working in research labs (and it appears a similar ratio for 2009), and with probably a similar percentage at Intel ISEF, students quickly learn what gives them the greatest chance to win major awards in these events – hooking up with a research lab.

Intel STS and Intel ISEF are not just competitions among extremely bright students, but instead are for the most part research lab vs. research lab competitions with an extremely bright student as a spokesperson for the research lab and the lab project they were given to do. There are exceptions – some students do all their project work without help, and it appears that some of the students who work at research labs may also have extended their project far beyond expectations.

However, for many of the research lab projects, if you look up information about the student and their project, you find that their project is almost exactly the same as one of the projects the lab has either already published, or is just a very slight variation from something the lab is working on. In numerous projects a parent or other close relative just happens to also specialize in exactly the same area in which the student has their project. I’ve noticed some entries where exactly the same title is on a student’s project as is found on a published paper of the lab or relative. These copycat projects appear more in some categories than in others. For example, these kind of projects don’t appear as often in the mathematics, computer science, and engineering categories. In talking with various students about their projects, I’ll often ask them about what kind of help they’ve had on their projects – several times I’ve had a student neglect to tell me about such things as their mentor just happened to have written their master’s thesis or their dissertation on exactly the same topic as the student’s project. Last year at ISEF one of the top winners had appeared previously as a co-author on a paper with their mentor as a co-author on the same paper, and this paper just happened to be the student’s project at ISEF. Also, don’t count on the judges being able to ferret out where the student’s work ends and the mentors begins – I have strong suspicions that some of the top awards at recent ISEFs were given to students who successfully snookered the judges about how much of the project they created from their own ideas. This also implies that at least some of the research lab directors aren’t being very accurate in the forms they fill out about what portion of the project was the student responsible for, etc.

With their papers at STS not being allowed to mention their mentors or co-researchers by name, and with a similar prohibition at ISEF on the display board contents, unless the student volunteers information about any help they received, then during the public display the public is given the false impression that the students did this amazing work all by themselves. I realize the intent of this “blind” rule is so that judges won’t be influenced by knowing who the student did their research under. However, it has the effect of the student getting all the credit for the project. I agree with what someone else wrote:
“At the very least:
I believe that there should be full disclosure on these projects - that they should be listed as joint projects - with the student’s name second, not first - with the mentor, and that there should be an acknowledgement if multi-million dollar lab equipment was used”.
The name of the research lab should also be listed.

While team entries aren’t allowed at STS, they are at ISEF. The team entries compete in a different category than do the individual entries. ISEF correctly recognizes that it is not fair to have teams compete against individuals. It is also not fair for individuals to have to compete against an individual who has a team backing them that is not seen (the research lab cohorts).

I do feel it is unfair in a high school science competition for the projects that have resulted from the research lab internship to be competing against projects that have not had this advantage, especially when the project looks so close to other studies done at the lab. Similarly, I feel it is not fair to compare projects where the mentor was a specialist with a Master’s or a Doctorate degree in the field in which the student is entering the project against projects with the high school science teacher or the parents as the mentor.

When I brought this topic up at last year’s Intel ISEF in Atlanta, that ISEF had become a contest between research labs, I was told by someone on the Society for Science and the Public that the judges would be able to tell if the student had really come up with the idea for the project and then had done the work themselves.

I also notice on the Intel ISEF Judging Criteria that up to 30 points are allowed for Creative Ability. I wonder how any of these projects associated with the research labs demonstrate creativity when it appears that many of them are provided with a project at the research lab, and then are helped as needed.

But I think that many students, teachers, lab researchers, and others associated with STS and ISEF don’t see anything wrong with this. In fact, it is being encouraged. One official was quoted in one article “the bar is being raised for entry into STS and ISEF” by the schools in one area that are employing a scientific research specialist to help the students in their school do the science fair projects. I also saw an article where the chairman of Intel praised these mentors and lab researchers for helping the science students on their projects and called for more of this. Students at these schools might feel that just because another student entering a science competition did not use a mentor or a research lab that it is not their fault and they shouldn’t be penalized. All of these points need to be considered.

But is it a fair playing field when some students that happen to be in certain school districts have these research lab opportunities available to them, while other students, through no fault of their own, live in area of the country that does not have any research lab internship opportunities or that only have contact with a mentor by phone or e-mail. Sure, some research lab internships are over the summer and perhaps cover some of the student’s expenses. But sometimes due to various circumstances the student can’t attend, and this is not really an option for them. Instead of this being a level playing field, I would call some of these programs “affirmative action for the rich”. For example, in an article on one school, they mention that the school is located in the 8th richest county in the U.S.A.

I realize that these categorization only applies to some of the students who work in labs, and that there are more students working in the research labs who are truly creative and produce truly outstanding projects. And all of the students are extremely bright