10-Year-Old Accidentally Discovers New Explosive Molecule

[cookyy2k]

EDIT:

But notice how everyone remembers said apple just as much as the scientist who elaborated.

Yeah, also the fact that story is totally made up has a lot to say about how people "remember" scientific advances.

It's made up? Daw.

Still, not sure how that's relevant, because Clara most definitely made that model.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kPCgnc70MSgC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page gives an excellent view of how these epithany stories have appeared but are never truly factual, and gives what I'd call the definition of scientific discovery. Using this background I'd still credit the teacher with the discovery.

 

[lacktheknack]

EDIT:

But notice how everyone remembers said apple just as much as the scientist who elaborated.

Yeah, also the fact that story is totally made up has a lot to say about how people "remember" scientific advances.

It's made up? Daw.

Still, not sure how that's relevant, because Clara most definitely made that model.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kPCgnc70MSgC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page gives an excellent view of how these epithany stories have appeared but are never truly factual, and gives what I'd call the definition of scientific discovery. Using this background I'd still credit the teacher with the discovery.

So you're saying Clara deserves no credit at all, because she's... not actually factual?

I'm confused.

 

[cookyy2k]

EDIT:

But notice how everyone remembers said apple just as much as the scientist who elaborated.

Yeah, also the fact that story is totally made up has a lot to say about how people "remember" scientific advances.

It's made up? Daw.

Still, not sure how that's relevant, because Clara most definitely made that model.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kPCgnc70MSgC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page gives an excellent view of how these epithany stories have appeared but are never truly factual, and gives what I'd call the definition of scientific discovery. Using this background I'd still credit the teacher with the discovery.

So you're saying Clara deserves no credit at all, because she's... not actually factual?

I'm confused.

No, I'm saying that since she was part of the accident that created a model that was then recognised by someone with prior knowlage and submitted to be reviewed. So crediting her with the discovery is equivalent to crediting Newton's theory of gravity to an apple (if the whole apple falling story was true). Give some credit maybe as the precipiating factor to the discovery but not for the discovery as she did not make the discovery, the teacher did.

 

[lacktheknack]

EDIT:

But notice how everyone remembers said apple just as much as the scientist who elaborated.

Yeah, also the fact that story is totally made up has a lot to say about how people "remember" scientific advances.

It's made up? Daw.

Still, not sure how that's relevant, because Clara most definitely made that model.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kPCgnc70MSgC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page gives an excellent view of how these epithany stories have appeared but are never truly factual, and gives what I'd call the definition of scientific discovery. Using this background I'd still credit the teacher with the discovery.

So you're saying Clara deserves no credit at all, because she's... not actually factual?

I'm confused.

No, I'm saying that since she was part of the accident that created a model that was then recognised by someone with prior knowlage and submitted to be reviewed. So crediting her with the discovery is equivalent to crediting Newton's theory of gravity to an apple (if the whole apple falling story was true). Give some credit maybe as the precipiating factor to the discovery but not for the discovery as she did not make the discovery, the teacher did.

That was... all I wanted.

I think we just had a misunderstanding.

 

[cookyy2k]

EDIT:

But notice how everyone remembers said apple just as much as the scientist who elaborated.

Yeah, also the fact that story is totally made up has a lot to say about how people "remember" scientific advances.

It's made up? Daw.

Still, not sure how that's relevant, because Clara most definitely made that model.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kPCgnc70MSgC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This page gives an excellent view of how these epithany stories have appeared but are never truly factual, and gives what I'd call the definition of scientific discovery. Using this background I'd still credit the teacher with the discovery.

So you're saying Clara deserves no credit at all, because she's... not actually factual?

I'm confused.

No, I'm saying that since she was part of the accident that created a model that was then recognised by someone with prior knowlage and submitted to be reviewed. So crediting her with the discovery is equivalent to crediting Newton's theory of gravity to an apple (if the whole apple falling story was true). Give some credit maybe as the precipiating factor to the discovery but not for the discovery as she did not make the discovery, the teacher did.

That was... all I wanted.

I think we just had a misunderstanding.

It does seem that way, well glad that's resolved.

 

[Iszfury]

This is saddening. Are you guys really taking the totally accidental discovery of a new substance by a pre-secondary school FIFTH GRADER as an affront to your intellectual worthiness? The butthurt here is sometimes too much to bear. And now you guys are downplaying the legitimacy of the article because of it? Learn to have some fucking fun once in a while.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

I didn't realise there were so many grinches lurking around here...

I get the distinct impression matthew94 and now cookyy2k don't have many friends.

Tell me, when you go around to your relatives house and their 2 year old brings you a finger painting they just made cause they want to show it off, do you go into a long-winded criticism of the presented subject matter and rant on it's lack of refinement in the face of more famously acclaimed works in the artistic community?
Or do you just take it with a little smile and nod saying 'ohhhhh, verry nice, good work there champ"

Cause right now you're following the example laid out by the first option and making a ripe old ass of yourselves...

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

So did the child just put together a model for the craic or did she intentionally put it together with full knowledge of what she is doing.

If it's the former then I really don't care. If it's the latter then "Good for you".

Bit harsh. In the world of real growny-uppy scientists things get discovered accidentally all the time.

That's good for them but if the former is true (in my original post) then it means she isn't gifted or anything and should be praised as much as anyone else who discovers things with no real use ie not much.

If she discovered it and then she found a way to sythesise it in real life and found a use for it then that's fantastic and she should be praised for it but I think the Professor should get more praise in this case as he is actually going to investigate it and its uses.

EDIT Boom, I was right

"But that?s what happened when Clara Lazen, 10, randomly arranged a unique combination of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon atoms."

http://now.humboldt.edu/news/not-your-average-fifth-grade-assignment/

Randomly

So this is where the Grinch comes after stealing Christmas from some Albanian orphans

That made my day. Never laughed harder on this board. thank you sir, I applaud you.

 

[X10J]

So did the child just put together a model for the craic or did she intentionally put it together with full knowledge of what she is doing.

If it's the former then I really don't care. If it's the latter then "Good for you".

EDIT I was right

"But that?s what happened when Clara Lazen, 10, randomly arranged a unique combination of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon atoms."

http://now.humboldt.edu/news/not-your-average-fifth-grade-assignment/

Randomly

It was pure chance and she isn't going to be the one researching its uses so well done little girl, you discovered something by accident and will have no involvement in making it useful.

Oh c'mon, man. She radomly and unintentionally outdid EVERY SCIENTIST WHO EVER LOOKED AT NITROGLYCERINE. Now I get the "it only counts if it's on purpose" thing, but she's a ten year old unintentionally solving a puzzle fully grown scientist didn't even realize they were looking at, not Columbus stumbling over America thanks to his own lack of navigational abilities. It may not be cleverly intentional, but it is funny, and it's damn cute.

 

[X10J]

That's kinda cool, I guess. I wonder if there's any practical application of this randomly generated molecule that only exists when artificially created in a lab?

It was pure chance and she isn't going to be the one researching its uses so well done little girl, you discovered something by accident and will have no involvement in making it useful.

Yeah, not that impressive, but it's just a news story probably aimed generating views, and might even create more interest in Popular Science (which is a cool magazine anyway) and science in general, so no harm done, right?

Apparently it can potentially be applied to "bottle energy" and "blow crap up."

 

[Silas13013]

So did the child just put together a model for the craic or did she intentionally put it together with full knowledge of what she is doing.

If it's the former then I really don't care. If it's the latter then "Good for you".

EDIT I was right

"But that?s what happened when Clara Lazen, 10, randomly arranged a unique combination of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon atoms."

http://now.humboldt.edu/news/not-your-average-fifth-grade-assignment/

Randomly

It was pure chance and she isn't going to be the one researching its uses so well done little girl, you discovered something by accident and will have no involvement in making it useful.

The person who discovered penicillin wants to have a word with you.

 

[DoctorSun]

This is all sorts of awesome, the teacher should get a substantial amount of credit for noticing the structure, as should the child for creating it. Although I don't know what would be a suitable reward for a curious 5th grader.

 

[DkLnBr]

So did the child just put together a model for the craic or did she intentionally put it together with full knowledge of what she is doing.

If it's the former then I really don't care. If it's the latter then "Good for you".

Bit harsh. In the world of real growny-uppy scientists things get discovered accidentally all the time.

Accidentally discover penicillin? don't care...

But amazing thing to happen to the kid. The most i did when i was that age was... I dont know, catch Mewtwo? to be honest im a little jealous

 

[AstylahAthrys]

That is pretty cool. Shows some creative thinking on her part and hopefully will lead her to be even more interested in Chemistry in the future. So what if she's not a genius and it was an accident? She had an idea and it led to something cool. I like that.

 

[Warachia]

He had the intelligence to actually use his discovery unlike this person.

She's 10.

Beethoven may have been publishing his sonatas around that age, but he wasn't taking them to the publishers himself.

And he understood that music theory, she just put molecules together randomly.

If you had 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters writing forever you eventually get the best novel of all time.

Does that make the monkey a literary genius or is just the result of probability taking it's course? No it is the latter and thus the monkey shouldn't be praised and neither should she.

Don't ever compare her to Beethoven.

Okay, the monkey argument is and always has been bullshit. A person who makes a new discovery no matter how random should be praised for having made said discovery, even if for nothing else. For some reason your argument seems to come off as extremely petty and trying to paint her as an idiot.

 

[Warachia]

Guys, guys, come on now. I think we can all agree, there's something seriously wrong with Matthew if he would bash a 10 year old girl. But I think we should move past that and stop provoking the lad. No matter how many people tell him he's wrong he will still think he's the only right-minded person in the world. Just because the internet breeds obstinate, egotistical, jealous, bitter, judgmental, cynical, whiny, petty and immature little narcissists like gangbusters. We understand that is the nature of the beast. So let's all just let it be. Even if he probably smells.

That's a fair point, and I think I'll take you up on it. I just don't get why some people see something new, and try to claim bullshit with no evidence to do so.

 

[Akyho]

Randomly

It was pure chance and she isn't going to be the one researching its uses so well done little girl, you discovered something by accident and will have no involvement in making it useful.

But...I thought we only had 10 year old girls researching explosives, to hear that one has actually made something of note in their field I think she deserves to be in the lab with the other 10 year old girls, It maby pushing it...a few 11 year old girls could be on the team if the funding is generous.

Yes she got it purely by accident. For all we know in playing with lego one of us on this forum built the most advanced technology theory known to man.......then proceed to throw it against the wall to see it smash.

However there is a lot of revolutionary things in the world that makes the modern world as it is, was found purely by accident or even by a child.

The child may not have genuine ability to knowingly create it. However a clap dosnt hurt anybody does it? a little patronizing clap to her and say "good job" dosnt hurt us does it? Oh dear...I now have cancer because we appreciated the absolute blind luck that girl has, Now I am angry at her....I am now looking at her to be the genius she should be and cure me. She isnt.....well I am greatly annoyed now.

Be her 10 be you be me be any one from age 1 to 100 If they have the same blind luck. I will give just the same patronizing clap and "good job" and it will be the same news either way. Dont be negative you dont even need to be positive. Just be neutral?

 

[samsonguy920]

Regardless if it was on accident or not, who is to say Clara doesn't revisit her discovery after she gets a PhD in Chemistry and discovers something even more awesome out of it?
Dismissing it all because she's 10 is a little pedantic and being closed minded. Her mind already had the motivation to actually follow through and ask her teacher if it was a legit molecule. She also had the good fortune to actually have a teacher who gives a care about his students and what he is teaching.
Far as I am concerned, the first compound made from that molecule should be named after both of them.

If they haven't found a use for it in about the 18 years (from now) it will take for her to get a PhD then I doubt it will be a very useful molecule.

I am unsure what your personal vendetta is on this matter, but I will point out that there is the possibility that many discoveries and uses can be made around a molecule or compound. I'm not saying it will take until then to discover them, I am saying that there is the possibility that she could find one more.

 

[Auron225]

That is pretty cool =) I hope its useful for something, even if its small.

For those that now clearly hate this little girl (for, I dunno, accomplishing more than you will in life?) would you all say any of this to her face? Would you tell her how she didn't, in fact, discover anything and should get 0 credit for it?

 

[Bernzz]

Randomly

Instead of getting hit on the head with an apple, tasting your finger, letting orange go mouldy, serving someone wafer-thin potatoes or any of the other random ways Science is progressed?

Or would you class Gravity, Saccharin, Penicillin, or Crisps as not very exciting?

And those people all wrote papers/investigated uses of their discoveries.

Fleming didn't go, "I found an odd mould pattern, would you solve why this has happened please?" to another person, no, he took it upon himself to research it and helped save many people as a result.

He had the intelligence to actually use his discovery unlike this person.

...he wasn't a ten year old girl.

I repeat, ten year old fucking girl, not a grown up scientist. I assume then that at ten years old, if you'd discovered this molecule you would have synthesised it yourself because you're smart, "unlike this person"?