What did your kid do today?

And the next CEO of Lockheed Martin is discovered.

vudukungfu: What did your kid do today?

Played with tinkertoys, just like this kid.

He will have a promising career with Black Mesa.

/only part worth seeing.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: [i280.photobucket.com image 640x511]

/only part worth seeing.

Whoa whoa whoa... That kid's from KC? And is in the KCMO district?

Hawnkee: He will have a promising career with Black Mesa.

More likely Aperture Science.

Hawnkee: He will have a promising career with Black Mesa.

He?

Wait until the DEA comes with a no-knock warrant for making designer drugs.

"If a synthetic chemist succeeded at creating the molecule - dubbed tetranitratoxycarbon for short - it could store energy, create a large explosion..."

Oh yeah.

Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

FTFA
"Now that Clara Lazen of Kansas City, Mo. has been published in a major chemistry journal"

no.


/ that doesn't diminish her amazing and cool accomplishment at such a young age
// flaw in huffpo writer's understanding of where this journal falls in impact factor
/// published in many journals, ranging from low to medium-high impact factor, but not yet in Nature or Science though.

Tetranitratoxycarbon consists of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon, with a structure similar to that of nitroglycerin. It is predicted to have explosive properties.

DEA? No. FBI and NCC? Yes.

As a PhD chemist I am surprised that a theoretical chemist has never published these ridiculous structures before. How nice it would be to be able to publish chemistry based on nothing but drawings on a computer. The energy in these molecules would preclude their synthesis.

Really what this is saying that it takes a complete lack of understanding to be able to suggest that molecules like this could exist. Maybe one day this type of suggestion will lead to something revolutionary, but today is not that day.

satanorsanta: As a PhD chemist I am surprised that a theoretical chemist has never published these ridiculous structures before. How nice it would be to be able to publish chemistry based on nothing but drawings on a computer. The energy in these molecules would preclude their synthesis.

Really what this is saying that it takes a complete lack of understanding to be able to suggest that molecules like this could exist. Maybe one day this type of suggestion will lead to something revolutionary, but today is not that day.

As a PhD nuclear engineer, u mad bro?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

It suggests she has an intuitive sense of how molecules are put together and further study in chemistry and nuclear science should be encouraged. If she can produce on raw talent imagine what talent plus knowledge could do?

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

It's sort of like how the undergrad who mixes the LB formula and pushes the button on the autoclave gets to be third author on several molecular bio papers at a young age?

Ten-year-old plays with toy. "Discovers" molecule that, as yet, can't even be theoretically synthesized. Where's the news story here? How did the actual scientist behind the publishing actually get this published? There doesn't even seem to be anything of actual substance here. WTF, scientific community?

vudukungfu: What did your kid do today?

farked your mum

/ and I'm out
// your mum's a sex criminal now

NetOwl: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

It's sort of like how the undergrad who mixes the LB formula and pushes the button on the autoclave gets to be third author on several molecular bio papers at a young age?

I thought RAs don't get their names on papers. They don't where I work, they get their money the guy who pays the money gets the name on the paper.

Nem Wan:

It suggests she has an intuitive sense of how molecules are put together...

Molecular model kits are built in such a way that that any random assembly of the balls ans sticks produces a theoretically feasible molecule. There is no intuition involved.

Just because you can build a molecule with a kit or draw it on paper doesn't mean it can exist in nature.

When I was 10, the exact same thing happened when I invented tetrahydroxycarbon. I won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and Medicine for that one. Then, when I was 11, I proved that it could activate the then putative tetrahyroxycarbon receptor. I won a second Nobel Prize for Chemistry and Medicine for that. Then, when I was 12, I proved that the tetrahydroxycarbon receptor could be a G-protein coupled receptor. I won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Medicine for that. Then, when I was 13, I proved that the GPCR could inhibit Gi-linked phosphorylation cascades. Another Nobel Prize.

Of course it's never been made, but that's just details.

Well, while she has fun with her fictional, physically impossible molecule, I'll just keep building these auto-destruct assassin-toasters in my sub-garage lab and sneaking them into Best-Buy store inventories.

/for the NSA spook reading this, I'm kidding; please don't sick the DHS on my ass.

I got published in a chemistry journal as a teenager, about 16 years old.

If you arrange equal-sized circular disks together, you can completely surround one disk with six others along its perimeter. Try this with disk-shaped magnets and one will fly off when you have three or four and try to fit in one more. This makes a nice 2-dimensional conceptual demonstration of the chemical theory of valence shell electron pair repulsion. At least that is what my article says.

vudukungfu: What did your kid do today?

Bugged me while I was cooking taco hamburger sliders because he wanted some people food, and he also wanted to go outside and chase a dog about six times his size out of the yard. He'll probably gook stuff up later. Not racist gook but the sound the squeaky toy makes when he chews it. He gooks it up, goofs it up, and goods it up, because he's a good baby. Wait, you meant actual kid and not animal you assign human characteristics too. Meh, I care more about him than every ten year old kid in the world anyway except my nephew.

Now, as far as the article goes wouldn't it be batshiat insane if what she discovered led to the foundation of inter-stellar travel in the form of a new energy source.

Nem Wan: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

It suggests she has an intuitive sense of how molecules are put together and further study in chemistry and nuclear science should be encouraged. If she can produce on raw talent imagine what talent plus knowledge could do?

It suggests she's a kid that grasps the understanding that filling up every space in a building block toy makes it look better. At the most it suggests she has a slightly above-average aesthetic cognitive function. Nothing more nor less. Doesn't diminish the cool factor in the least bit imaginable, but it's pretty silly and goofy for people to jump to conclusions over a kid playing with toys.

Nem Wan: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Even if it proves useless or unimportant, it's still cool. Just getting kids interested in math and science is an uphill battle, so a kid taking an interest in molecular chemistry is an accomplishment in itself. We need a lot more kids like her.

You read the part where she was just playing with what amounted to Tinker Toys and thought the thing she built looked pretty, right? That's not taking an interest in molecular chemistry. It's cool that she got to be a co-author on the paper, but it doesn't mean anything, really.

It suggests she has an intuitive sense of how molecules are put together and further study in chemistry and nuclear science should be encouraged. If she can produce on raw talent imagine what talent plus knowledge could do?

Didn't some lab or agency somewhere release an online game or something where players are developing molecules? (I think it might have been intended for pharmaceutical applications)

Anyway, yeah, I suppose giving the girl a co-author credit is of no direct value but it's a nice sop and in not too many more years will be an incentive for her to consider chemistry as an academic pursuit. Yes, it might be pure accident she came up with the molecule model but it's one of the better reasons to encourage a 10 year old.

Honest Bender: Ten-year-old plays with toy. "Discovers" molecule that, as yet, can't even be theoretically synthesized. Where's the news story here? How did the actual scientist behind the publishing actually get this published? There doesn't even seem to be anything of actual substance here. WTF, scientific community?

The Skeptical Chemist: Nem Wan:

It suggests she has an intuitive sense of how molecules are put together...

Molecular model kits are built in such a way that that any random assembly of the balls ans sticks produces a theoretically feasible molecule. There is no intuition involved.

Just because you can build a molecule with a kit or draw it on paper doesn't mean it can exist in nature.

Nature? I thought we have already created several elements that don't naturally exist.

I'd give you the argument if we were talking pure mathematics but you yourself said "theoretically feasible". All that tells me is that we don't know how to create the conditions necessary to synthesize it. Or that our understanding of current chemistry is incomplete (else it wouldn't be theoretically feasible).

Sometimes, finding out why something doesn't work is as valuable as why it does.

I came up with cure for HIV when I was 4. I drew a picture and my mom wrote "Cure for HIV" underneath it.

Where is my huffpo article?

FTFA: "I have never partnered with a middle school student ... before."

Next on Fark: another schoolteacher sex scandal. Have a seat right over there.

\Not gonna get a window seat for that one

Leader O'Cola: FTFA
"Now that Clara Lazen of Kansas City, Mo. has been published in a major chemistry journal"

no.


/ that doesn't diminish her amazing and cool accomplishment at such a young age
// flaw in huffpo writer's understanding of where this journal falls in impact factor
/// published in many journals, ranging from low to medium-high impact factor, but not yet in Nature or Science though.

Published in Science, so getting a kick...

/Feb 2010

Guidette Frankentits: I came up with cure for HIV when I was 4. I drew a picture and my mom wrote "Cure for HIV" underneath it.

Where is my huffpo article?

You gotta have connections. Remember how Obama got elected President and won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush? You gotta have connections...

Mad_Radhu: Hawnkee: He will have a promising career with Black Mesa.

More likely Aperture Science.

Her next trick: combustible lemons.

Leader O'Cola: published in many journals, ranging from low to medium-high impact factor, but not yet in Nature or Science though

Make up more interesting data.

This is like saying you're kid's an architect because they built a house out of Legos.

Honest Bender: Ten-year-old plays with toy. "Discovers" molecule that, as yet, can't even be theoretically synthesized. Where's the news story here? How did the actual scientist behind the publishing actually get this published? There doesn't even seem to be anything of actual substance here. WTF, scientific community?

Your comment betrays a misunderstanding of how "the scientific community" functions. There is nothing problematic with "wrong" or "useless" articles being published. If the work is interesting, but wrong, people will follow up by pointing out the errors. If it is uninteresting, well, the review process should have taken care of this, but with the proliferation of journals, it is possible to publish pretty much anything anywhere. But if it's uninteresting, it will remain unread, and I'm fairly certain that no harm has been done.

Important work will attract interest in the form of citations, and other people will follow up on it (not always---some seminal works have gone unnoticed for years and even decades, sometimes just because they were too far ahead of their time). The additional publicity spurs a positive feedback mechanism, which will bring even more scrutiny, and this is how the scientific community functions vis a vis publishing.

I suppose I should have a seat over there for white-knighting a ten-year-old. Just seemed to me, that if we're going to knock her, we should do it by pointing out that she'll probably drop out of her first year of college and end up on the pole with three kids by three fathers by the age of 23. Or not---she seems to have a good head on her shoulders, since the next part of the scientific process is indeed convincing the military to give you money for more research.

Psst...hey kid...go play with your chemo-Tinker-Toy set and diddle me up an energetic photo-chemical to this set of specs I've got. I'll split the take with you.

This kid's quote tells you everything you need to know about the American Empire.

TFA: The 10-year-old was experimenting with a molecule-building toy during a class assignment when she stumbled upon an unusual-looking molecule. Her intrigued teacher, Kenneth Boehr, photographed it and sent it to his college buddy Robert Zoellner, a chemistry professor at Humboldt State University in California.


The molecule in question?

proteus_b: Your comment betrays a misunderstanding of how "the scientific community" functions.

Not really.

If it is uninteresting, well, the review process should have taken care of this

So when I say it, I don't understand the scientific community. But when you say it, it's ok?

The Skeptical Chemist: Just because you can build a molecule with a kit or draw it on paper doesn't mean it can exist in nature.

On the one hand, the kid's molecule looks rather implausible. On the other hand, octanitrocubane (new window) actually exists.

Dinodork:
Published in Science, so getting a kick...

/Feb 2010

For what?

/genuinely curious

Honest Bender: So when I say it, I don't understand the scientific community. But when you say it, it's ok?

Well jackass, I haven't read the paper, nor am I necessarily competent in synthetic chemistry, so I really couldn't say if the paper is interesting or not. It stands to reason that some papers which are uninteresting do get published, since there are many papers which garner no citations (or one, or two...). But I guess you're not interested in understanding how science works, so I'll let you get back to wanking.

Ishkur: it's just that more right-brained thinking (creativity, intuition)

there's a lot of creativity and intuition involved in producing original scientific work (hence my own staggering lack of achievement in this regard). what most farkers would consider well done artworks typically are created through the repetitive application of some kind of rote-learned skill.

proteus_b: Honest Bender: So when I say it, I don't understand the scientific community. But when you say it, it's ok?

Well jackass, I haven't read the paper, nor am I necessarily competent in synthetic chemistry, so I really couldn't say if the paper is interesting or not. It stands to reason that some papers which are uninteresting do get published, since there are many papers which garner no citations (or one, or two...). But I guess you're not interested in understanding how science works, so I'll let you get back to wanking.

Ad hominem, back peddling, and insults. You sure showed me. BTW, you're completely off the point. I don't really see much point in continuing this conversation.