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

DEET
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:37:12 +0000

Almost fifty years ago, Oleh Hornykiewicz discovered that l-dopa could be used to treat Parkinson’s Disease. While there have been some advances in Parkinson’s Disease since then, l-dopa is still the primary treatment for Parkinson’s. Why have there been no blockbuster breakthroughs in almost fifty years? Why are the cause(s) of Parkinson’s still unknown for the most part? Why is there no cure? Why is there no prevention? As one who has Parkinson’s disease, I am very interested in answers and solutions.

Back to my question - Why have there been no blockbuster breakthroughs in almost fifty years towards the treatment, cure, or understanding of Parkinson’s Disease?
One answer, I believe, is a result of the way science is done in research labs. I gather that in most labs that the lab is usually headed by a professor who sets the primary focus for the lab, and that the lab is populated by various post-docs and graduate students. While sometimes there are breakthroughs in completely new areas, for the most part the research builds on prior research in small increments. From what I can tell, this slow, incremental approach is not the path to a cure for Parkinson’s. Instead, there needs to be some new insights, some new directions, some new ideas. Parkinson’s researchers I have talked with also tell me privately that we shouldn’t expect the availability of embryonic stem cell research to be the solution to Parkinson’s, either.

After attending the last three ISEF’s, and after reading about the STS, it appears that the ISEF & STS are unknowingly teaching the student scientists that real science consists primarily of this slow, incremental approach. The students quickly learn that this approach also often results in receiving top awards at ISEF and STS. One can elucidate this route to ISEF and STS awards further by listing the typical steps that are involved, which appear to be: 1) get an internship in a research lab, 2) have someone in the lab come up with a project that is just a small spin-off of something the lab is already working on, 3) learn the lab procedures and protocols, 4) present the results as your original research 5) learn all you can about the subject you researched to make sure you can get through the judging

So, are these high school students who work in the research labs taught that real science plays it safe with the incremental approach or that real science involves taking risks, or trying out an unusual idea, or having a flash of brilliant insight? While the internship in a research lab while in high school may inspire the students, and while the internship will also likely cause the student to become proficient at performing experiments in the area that their mentor is teaching them, it is hard to say if these experiences will end up with the scientist who finds the cure for Parkinson’s.