Ten-Year-Old Fifth Grader Discovers New Molecule

Lol I remember in kindergarten we had stations, y'know the macaroni pasting station, mega blocks station, etc. Well one was the tempera painting station. I tried to paint a green dinosaur but f'ed it up badly. Since my dinosaur looked like a melting pickle with legs, I decided to dip the brush in different colors and splash the paper like crazy. When the teacher came to my station and asked me what the hell this was, I replied with a smug "modern art of course". She was bedazzled and called the principal and my mom to tell them how gifted I was. I had no clue of what I was doing and there was no true meaning, except frustration for my botched tyrannosaurus, to this chaotic mess I was making. To be fair, I had probably seen something about modern art on tv or maybe my dad mentioned it during the weekend.

Anyhow, sad that this kid's first thoughts are of money, destruction and, its synonym, the military.

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

I have to agree with GeorgiaGirl here. Sure the girl made the model of this new molecule, but did not infact know what she was making. She was just constructing a molecule that fitted well together. It was the chemist that the photo of the new molecule was sent to, who discovered that it was a new molecule.
Bit of a difference to me.
Sure she put it together in a form that would actually be viable, but purely by chance, not through advanced chemical knowhow.
And yes quite a few discoveries have been found purely by accident, but they have been found by the people conducting the experiments. They usually don't throw something together, then get a 3rd party involved to ask them if they have made anything worthwile.

But good on you for turning your comments into a personal attack on someone, just because you don't agree with their opinion.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

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?

I did read. The 'semantics' of any word have nothing to do with dictionaries. Metaphors are used as examples...but it is mostly the literal definitions.

You are arguing with the LITERAL and most ACCURATE definition of the word.

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

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?

I did read. The 'semantics' of any word have nothing to do with dictionaries. Metaphors are used as examples...but it is mostly the literal definitions.

You are arguing with the LITERAL and most ACCURATE definition of the word.

You have missed the point of what I was saying entirely. I was in fact agreeing with you - she did discover something. What I then went on to say that it doesn't necessitate genius or intelligence, which seems to be implied in the article linked in the OP as well as by people posting here.

Please read my posts properly in future; you'll save us both some time.

I have to agree with GeorgiaGirl here. Sure the girl made the model of this new molecule, but did not infact know what she was making. She was just constructing a molecule that fitted well together. It was the chemist that the photo of the new molecule was sent to, who discovered that it was a new molecule. Bit of a difference to me. Sure she put it together in a form that would actually be viable, but purely by chance, not through advanced chemical knowhow. And yes quite a few discoveries have been found purely by accident, but they have been found by the people conducting the experiments. They usually don't throw something together, then get a 3rd party involved to ask them if they have made anything worthwile. But good on you for turning your comments into a personal attack on someone, just because you don't agree with their opinion.

reply to post by jamesthegreat


And good on you for choosing to reply to this post and glossing over the one where I apologized to Georgia girl and frankly since neither post was addressed to you and I apologized to the person it was addressed to, your opinion is irrelevant to me. But, thanks for your concern.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
First of all: everyone is going to see this story and immediately start talking about this kid being conditioned? Really?
---------------

Now for my main comments:

I'm a teacher, and I work with gifted kids the same age as this kid. I hate to rain on her parade, but she didn't "discover" anything. She made a model, and the chemistry professor they sent the photo to said he's never seen it before, so he published it. They haven't even synthesized it (made it) yet. She didn't "discover" anything.

As I said, I hate to rain on her parade, but she made a symmetrical structure with a model kit. Not exactly computational chemistry. More like tinker toys to me.

The good news is that she is now excited about chemistry. That's the really good part to this story.

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

I would hazard a guess that she is more interested in getting paid than any actual scientific break through.
Its wrong for me to judge based on a 10 second sound bite but since its all i have at my disposal thats what i have to work with. This kid didnt sound like she was too interested in chemistry by the way she spoke. I would guess she had over heard her parents and teachers discussing ways they could make some money off this and simply regurgitated what she heard. Its FOX news so i guess Lindsey Lohan must have slept in this week.

Pretty amazing. When I was in 7th grade, some 8th grader in my school discovered some important thing regarding some genetic disease for her science fair project. It helped that both of her parents were researchers at Johns Hopkins, so she had access to things like scanning electron microscopes, but she apparently did the work herself and really did discover this new thing (sorry, was ages ago so I don't remember the details). Maybe mom and dad helped her, I really couldn't say, but it's also quite likely that she just had the same sort of head for this sort of thing that her parents had and a grounding in science from them from an early age.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl



GeorgiaGirl

you cant admit a 10 year old discovered a molecule before someone with a phd lol

as for your husbands comments,
most big discoveries are made by people with no consensus. no phd

what you are saying is if you have no phd no discovery lol but people with a phd are often blind to anything outside the box, they have blinkers on and try and tell others its them who has blinkers on

you would be at home with school kids

reply to post by jamesthegreat


G'day jamesthegreat

Without the 10 year old girl, no molecule, simple

georgiagirl and hubby = sour grapes, simple

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
When I was 11 I figured out how to record Nintendo games on VCR tapes, use to fool my friends a lot with that one... I never got any acknowledgement.

Did you hear what she said near the end?
"I can sell this to the military for money..."

Got to love the priorities, bombs 1st, clean food and water for the hungry...last. I'm sure she'll be working for Monsanto by age 12.

Don't you remember being a kid? What was more fun, watching fireworks or planting broccoli?

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

Of course she didn't do any scientific reasoning in her construction of the model, but that's like saying a kid who discovers an ancient dinosaur bone and doesn't know what he's found, didn't actually discover it. The paleontologist who later confirms that it's a T-Rex leg discovered it.

edit on 2/3/2012 by OrphenFire because: (no reason given)

With all due respect, I think discovering a dino bone is a different type of discovery. It exists, and was found. I would agree with you--THAT would be a discovery. However, the molecule she inadvertently built does *not* exist, and has, in fact, never been made.

Have to say I'm disappointed. You're a teacher and you want to argue about what a little girl made? I don't care if she made a fart molecule, it's a matter of good for her with no negative attributes whatsoever. I once had a science teacher call me a quitter in the 7th grade, just two weeks later I took first prize in a poem contest out of the whole city of 7th graders.

Another teacher told a sweet, totally lovable 8th grader that if she were his daughter, he'd stab her.

What's wrong with you teachers?

Hello all!

I am going to share a quote here, and hope that some of the chemistry majors don't get too angry.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" ~Isaac Asimov

My point in saying that is, just because the girl found this amazingly stable and beautiful molecule "by accident" or by a "roundabout" means does not give anyone else the right to steal from her. She discovered the molecule and others found a use for it, plain and simple.

Teachers and governments who steal -- haven't we learned since Tesla?
It would be amazing to think that "a child might lead us" to the stars.... and beyond.

It's a better dream than the ones we have to borrow from Hollywood.

By the way, do any of you believe in synchronicity, and do you believe in telepathic networking?
Some girls are able to do amazing things when other people are simply in the room thinking quietly.
I don't expect you to believe that without seeing it yourself, but I hope you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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

The comparison is still relevent....

We over think / over complicate things...

reply to post by HiGilgamesh


I gave you a star because the debate is about a 10 years old. But there is a clear distinction regarding creation and discovery, especially in science.

I have no problem people calling 10 years old heroes left and right for each simple accomplishment, but I'm starting to have an issue when people start to bring normal duties or merely generic exceptional behavior (that is not unique or intentional) out of proportions.

This type of culture, for what I observe in US news, of great accolades being granted to grown up people simply by performing their duty correctly and as expected, that disgusts me a bit because it devalues those that do really deserve them.

Positive incentive, is a good thing, but people forget that going overboard about it turns the recognition into a social pressure (psychological bulling) to the under-performer, that sometimes only fails because of luck, and offends those that hose actions are really worth the recognition.

This type of thing is the result of a deep indoctrination, from the star stickers to a parent rewarding a kid for behaving "normally" it all trickles down to adulthood...

reply to post by Panic2k11


Aw, I think positive reinforcement can only have positive outcome... people should never be ashamed to try, ashamed that they are gifted, or that they are different.

Most 10 year old girls don't sit around putting together Molymods... it's not as easy as it looks actually.
Not to knock intelligence of girls -- far from it -- but I hope you agree that too many females are barred from pursuing practical science either by nature or nurture.

It's very exciting to see someone with enough creative interest and energy to make a discovery at all!
It's not that common, and what she did wasn't that far from the Benzene guy's snake vision either.

HMMMMM.

So if she painted the Mona Lisa by accident, would it be wrong to reward her?

reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle


As I said ...

I have no problem people calling 10 years old heroes left and right for each simple accomplishment, but I'm starting to have an issue when people start to bring normal duties or merely generic exceptional behavior (that is not unique or intentional) out of proportions.

note that someone had to provide some sort of guidance. The girl performed and should be encouraged, but it didn't happen in a vacuum, whoever provided the motivation and enabled her is also part responsible.

I agree totally with you statement:

... too many females are barred from pursuing practical science either by nature or nurture.

With an addition, that society also frames not only the roles of females but opportunities.