Ten-Year-Old Fifth Grader Discovers New Molecule

Here's what's super-irritating: in EVERY one of my posts, I talked about how great it is that this girl is now excited about Chemistry. Did you not see that???? The title of this thread is misleading. I was pointing that out. She didn't discover it. And by the way--I'm a fantastic teacher, and great at motivating gifted students to want to succeed. I love my job, and I love what these kids are capable of. But I also recognize what they are *not* capable of at their age.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Well, I can tell you what is super-irritating to me as well, and that is you claim to be a teacher, but apparently have poor reading comprehension skills.

The fact is she DID "discover" it, even if it was completely on accident. I even included examples of scientists that accidentally discovered stuff and yet even though it was on accident they are still credited with the discovery. So, explain to me why scientists that accidentally discover something are credited with discovery and yet your going to strip discovery away from this girl. Simply because she is ten and doesn't have a PHD? Please, even the scientist that published the paper gave her co author status along with her teacher, because at least he realized that even if she didn't do all the formulaic work, she still "DISCOVERED" the molecule.

As, far as you being an excellent teacher, I sure hope your not teaching English in anyway shape or form, because reading comprehension, is not really your strong suit.

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools
I sure hope your not teaching English in anyway shape or form, because reading comprehension, is not really your strong suit.

When I was 11, I was building rockets on my own and testing them for fun. When I was 14, I created a small plane/dart that was saturated with gas and tipped with matches that would explode upon impact. All young children want to seek and discover things around them. When I was 15 I discovered that I could take an empty plastic milk jug with an attached tube and use it to walk on the bottom of a large pond for over ten minutes and simply resurface just to fill it with more air to go back down again. This girl is as many of us, curious and exploratory. This is a great thing to teach children to be. Use one's mind and think of many ways to do things better. And enjoy the pleasure of doing it. That's what the children at the LHC in Switzerland are doing right now.

Originally posted by Fromabove
When I was 11, I was building rockets on my own and testing them for fun. When I was 14, I created a small plane/dart that was saturated with gas and tipped with matches that would explode upon impact. All young children want to seek and discover things around them. When I was 15 I discovered that I could take an empty plastic milk jug with an attached tube and use it to walk on the bottom of a large pond for over ten minutes and simply resurface just to fill it with more air to go back down again. This girl is as many of us, curious and exploratory. This is a great thing to teach children to be. Use one's mind and think of many ways to do things better. And enjoy the pleasure of doing it. That's what the children at the LHC in Switzerland are doing right now.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Indeed. I see alot of bruised ego's in this thread (no names being mentioned) who seemed to be embarassed at the fact a kid of this age could make a discovery. I don't think it's something to be embarassed about, I think it's something to be proud of.

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools

Here's what's super-irritating: in EVERY one of my posts, I talked about how great it is that this girl is now excited about Chemistry. Did you not see that???? The title of this thread is misleading. I was pointing that out. She didn't discover it. And by the way--I'm a fantastic teacher, and great at motivating gifted students to want to succeed. I love my job, and I love what these kids are capable of. But I also recognize what they are *not* capable of at their age.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Well, I can tell you what is super-irritating to me as well, and that is you claim to be a teacher, but apparently have poor reading comprehension skills.

The fact is she DID "discover" it, even if it was completely on accident. I even included examples of scientists that accidentally discovered stuff and yet even though it was on accident they are still credited with the discovery. So, explain to me why scientists that accidentally discover something are credited with discovery and yet your going to strip discovery away from this girl. Simply because she is ten and doesn't have a PHD? Please, even the scientist that published the paper gave her co author status along with her teacher, because at least he realized that even if she didn't do all the formulaic work, she still "DISCOVERED" the molecule.

As, far as you being an excellent teacher, I sure hope your not teaching English in anyway shape or form, because reading comprehension, is not really your strong suit.

edit on 3-2-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos and yes I shouldn't teach typing but I realise that shortcomming XD

Sigh.

This molecule has never been synthesized before. It is theoretical. Therefore nothing has been discovered.

I'm sorry you don't understand what that means.

But if it makes you feel better to say I must not be able to read, then by all means, go for it.

I'd think you would at least realize that when a person with a PhD in Chemistry says she didn't "discover" anything, he *might* know more about it than, say, YOU.

P.S. I can tell "your" not a student of grammar yourself, cowboy.

---------

Note to the rest of ATS: I am done arguing about this point. If you want to believe this girl is some sort of chemistry prodigy who has singlehandedly made some sort of phenomenal discovery (in her classroom with a model kit) then go for it.

I actually *do* really hope that this has ignited a strong interest in chemistry in this girl, and that when she really does learn some chemistry, she decides to pursue it as a career.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0

Originally posted by Fromabove
When I was 11, I was building rockets on my own and testing them for fun. When I was 14, I created a small plane/dart that was saturated with gas and tipped with matches that would explode upon impact. All young children want to seek and discover things around them. When I was 15 I discovered that I could take an empty plastic milk jug with an attached tube and use it to walk on the bottom of a large pond for over ten minutes and simply resurface just to fill it with more air to go back down again. This girl is as many of us, curious and exploratory. This is a great thing to teach children to be. Use one's mind and think of many ways to do things better. And enjoy the pleasure of doing it. That's what the children at the LHC in Switzerland are doing right now.

edit on 3-2-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Indeed. I see alot of bruised ego's in this thread (no names being mentioned) who seemed to be embarassed at the fact a kid of this age could make a discovery. I don't think it's something to be embarassed about, I think it's something to be proud of.

edit on 3-2-2012 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)

to "Fromabove::
I think that's great. You were learning by doing. That is EXACTLY what we want to teach and allow our kids to do.

Kids are capable of many amazing things. They are most definitely naturally curious and exploratory.
-----------------

to "virtuoso":
The idea the kids are naturally curious and exploratory has been my main point all along.

This girl wasn't doing anything that 100 other kids couldn't have done, being curious and exploratory. They ALL have the potential to take a bunch of chemistry models and put them together in novel ways. BUT...unless they can realize what they have done, they haven't made a chemistry discovery. Unfortunately, she doesn't have the scientific knowledge base to do that. It took an actual chemist to say, "Hey! Cool model! This could possibly work! Maybe one day we will actually make it!"

Think about it like this: the ancients studied the heavens, observed the motion of the planets, and called the planets "gods". But we credit the scientific "discovery" of the planets to the scientists who actually realized scientifically what they were. If you don't like that, don't blame me...that's just what a scientific discovery means...

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


FWIW, you're making sense to me.

It's cool if the girl did "discover" a new molecule but from what GG is saying, until the molecule has been synthesised and has been shown to be viable, then nothing has been discovered. GG's posts were cautiously positive; there's no need to jump on her and question her intelligence. Come on guys.

Sigh. This molecule has never been synthesized before. It is theoretical. Therefore nothing has been discovered. I'm sorry you don't understand what that means. But if it makes you feel better to say I must not be able to read, then by all means, go for it. I'd think you would at least realize that when a person with a PhD in Chemistry says she didn't "discover" anything, he *might* know more about it than, say, YOU. P.S. I can tell "your" not a student of grammar yourself, cowboy. --------- Note to the rest of ATS: I am done arguing about this point. If you want to believe this girl is some sort of chemistry prodigy who has singlehandedly made some sort of phenomenal discovery (in her classroom with a model kit) then go for it. I actually *do* really hope that this has ignited a strong interest in chemistry in this girl, and that when she really does learn some chemistry, she decides to pursue it as a career.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Well, I am big enough to admit when I am wrong and you are right, in this case. Science indeed doesn't consider a molecule to be discovered until it is either found in nature or synthesized.

As, far as believing the word of someone with a PHD in chemistry, the person cited was your husband, and no offense, but that is third hand information, from an anonymous poster on the interwebs and frankly, you can find 100 so called "experts" a day on this site alone, so sorry if I don't take the word of people I don't know and whose credientials I can't validate at face value.

And as far as mistakes in my grammar, most of those come from being absolutely abhorrent at typing and having some form of finger dyslexia. lol Which, I even admitted in the editing notes on one of my posts. On the other hand my reading comprehension skills and overall grammar skills are just fine.

In any case I am sorry if I was harsh on you and I apologize.

But, frankly I still find it interesting that the university still had to throw in the additional dig at the girl, saying she was just randomly was throwing stuff together, when she claims to have had a logical reason for the way she constructed her model. *shrugs* Oh well.

Anyway, sorry again and I will move on.

Here's the actual quote: “It was a molecule Professor Zoellner says that had never been thought of before”

So, my question is, do we create molecules to fit our design or do we discover molecules already in existance? I'm ignoramus in this so I don't understand at all.

Some people are INTENTIONALLY skewing the notion of "discovery" on some far reaching technicality...

The concept of this "molecule" did not EXIST before she made it. Irregardless of if she knew what she was doing or not, SHE discovered it. The teacher confirmed it. The molecule wouldn't exist in theory or to even be synthesized if it wasn't for "whatever" this kid did...

in my book...that is a F**** discovery...

Teachers from what I gather have some serious insecurities about their "pupils" upstaging them or making them look stupid or incompetent.

reply to post by Xcathdra


NASA did not develop the space pen, no public money was spent on its development...

i say she discovered it.

if it hadn't been for her, nobody would be aware of its existence.


she should get major credit.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


i am a retired plasterer not a chemist but i have to say that if this girl was given some basic rules by her teacher and she then went on to design a molecule that was not known of before .
then yes the girl did invent it.
a great many things are discoverd by trial and error or even by accident , take for example , stainless steel , penicillin the list could go on .
just because she did not understand completly what she had discovered , it does not make it any less important .

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0


It's interesting how some people, no matter how young, seem to have a knack for understanding certain concepts, whether they fully realize the science behind it or not. It doesn't seem to be a random finding, rather there seems to be a method to the madness--perhaps an understanding encoded in our genes.


(Source)

I think you may be overstating the intellect of the child. All she did was made something that 'looked nice'. As for being published, I think that the professor in question was in it for the attention gained by the fact that having a 10 year old co-author is quite the novelty. The university he works at seems to have a fairly poor chemistry department, so the more publicity, the better (it's nice for grants).

I have one other point of contention that I'm pulling from the article you linked. It calls the journal a 'major chemistry journal'; while I can accept that it is at least readable, having an impact factor (ratio of papers published to papers cited in a given year) of just over 1 isn't exactly something to ring home about. Anything over 4 is considered good, whereas 1 is more towards the lower side of average. As a comparison, Nature journals typically sit at above 30.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

If she crafted a model of a theoretical molecule that has never been conceptualized before, then yes, she did discover a new molecule. If it was just a random bunch of atoms that have no meaning, then it would be tinker toys, but the fact is, the chemistry professor said it is possibly a high energy compound.

Here's his publication: www.sciencedirect.com...

You were saying?

Well, my husband the chemistry professor with a PhD in medicinal chemistry agrees with me.

*She* didn't discover it. She made a cool model. She had no idea what she was building. The chemistry professor her teacher sent the photo to did all of the science here.

Look, I agree it's cool that she is listed on his publication. I also think it's cool that she is now excited about chemistry. She's clearly bright. I hope she decides to pursue chemistry as she goes through school.

edit on 3-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

There is a huge difference between discovering something and knowing exactly what it was before you found it. You don't have to know what an animal is before you discover it; you don't have to know who made a cave painting before you discover it.

Your theory is flawed. What you're talking about is hypothesis and experimentation, because that is the only way to know something before you discover it.

Try using Webster's dictionary...

dis·cov·er/disˈkəvər/
Verb:

Find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search.

She found it unexpectedly. It was a discovery SHE made, because she made the model on her own.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


I'm with you on this one. For now at least, just because it hasn't been synthesized. If it turns out to actually exist I would credit this as a discovery, no matter her intellectual capacity. As has been said, a lot of great discoveries have happened by complete accident.

But for now, she hasn't done anything, really.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by prisoneronashipoffools

And the thing that saddens me is people like you and the university, instead of actually encouraging this girl to continue studying science might in fact just turn her off to it.

edit on 3-2-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: typos

edit on 3-2-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: addition

Here's what's super-irritating: in EVERY one of my posts, I talked about how great it is that this girl is now excited about Chemistry. Did you not see that????

The title of this thread is misleading. I was pointing that out. She didn't discover it.

And by the way--I'm a fantastic teacher, and great at motivating gifted students to want to succeed. I love my job, and I love what these kids are capable of. But I also recognize what they are *not* capable of at their age.


Edit to add:

if, the molecule is synthesized in the future and turns out profitable this girl might get a Nobel Prize or even some royalties

Are you kidding???? A Nobel Prize???? And unless she has patented it, which it doesn't look like they did before it was published, she is S.O.L. That's the way this kind of stuff works....you have to patent it BEFORE you publish it. Once you publish it, the cat's out of the bag.

edit on 3-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

I agree...mostly. Every once in a while you come across a prodigy that knows more at the age of 9 than some adults into their 30's who are Ph.D's know, but this kid is no prodigy or she would have a Ph.D by the time she was 12 and not still in the 5th grade.

Mozart was a genius, but he was also a fool who mismanaged his funds and ended his life being buried in an unmarked paupers grave. This is the part where God had always stressed that knowledge without wisdom is foolish. Too bad people do not pay attention to that, if they did we wouldn't have things that could crack the earths crust we call ICBM's which are nick named "crust busters" and "planet killers".

She is excited about science and chemistry and it may fuel the fire for her to want to make good grades and thats the good thing that should be learned from this topic. Nowadays we have kids that don't go to school, they go clubbing and in my neck of the woods you actually see kids who do not have a problem with getting all F's on their report cards and that is a tragedy.

Originally posted by Starchild23


There is a huge difference between discovering something and knowing exactly what it was before you found it. You don't have to know what an animal is before you discover it; you don't have to know who made a cave painting before you discover it.

Your theory is flawed. What you're talking about is hypothesis and experimentation, because that is the only way to know something before you discover it.

Try using Webster's dictionary...

dis·cov·er/disˈkəvər/
Verb:

Find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search.

She found it unexpectedly. It was a discovery SHE made, because she made the model on her own.

edit on CSaturdayam383838f38America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

edit on CSaturdayam393939f39America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

I think you are all getting too caught up in the semantics of discovery. Any idiot can discover something; the proof in the proverbial pudding comes in the ability to recognise that discovery. While the child did discover a new compound, it was her teacher and later the chemistry professor who realised that discovery, not her. As I said in my above post, the OP and the article are massively overstating her intellect and her abilities based on the discovery.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by Starchild23


There is a huge difference between discovering something and knowing exactly what it was before you found it. You don't have to know what an animal is before you discover it; you don't have to know who made a cave painting before you discover it.

Your theory is flawed. What you're talking about is hypothesis and experimentation, because that is the only way to know something before you discover it.

Try using Webster's dictionary...

dis·cov·er/disˈkəvər/
Verb:

Find (something or someone) unexpectedly or in the course of a search.

She found it unexpectedly. It was a discovery SHE made, because she made the model on her own.

edit on CSaturdayam383838f38America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

edit on CSaturdayam393939f39America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

I think you are all getting too caught up in the semantics of discovery. Any idiot can discover something; the proof in the proverbial pudding comes in the ability to recognise that discovery. While the child did discover a new compound, it was her teacher and later the chemistry professor who realised that discovery, not her. As I said in my above post, the OP and the article are massively overstating her intellect and her abilities based on the discovery.

Wait. Are you saying the Webster dictionary is wrong? Did you just put down the book that contains all the correct worldly definitions of more words than you and your parents know put together?

Holy crap, this guy knows more than the dictionary!

Originally posted by Starchild23

Wait. Are you saying the Webster dictionary is wrong? Did you just put down the book that contains all the correct worldly definitions of more words than you and your parents know put together?

Holy crap, this guy knows more than the dictionary!

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or did you just not read my post?