7 ms·

While I don't think she ought to have been charged as a criminal, calling this "an unauthorized science experiment which lightly damaged an eight ounce plastic

While I don't think she ought to have been charged as a criminal, calling this "an unauthorized science experiment which lightly damaged an eight ounce plastic water bottle" is blatantly dishonest. As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up. People could have been injured (google drano bombs). Again, I don't condone legal action against her, but praising her as a scientist doesn't seem like the right course of action either. Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with explosions - 'for science' or otherwise. I have a problem with explosions on school property, unsanctioned by professors, and without proper (or any) safety equipment.

mindcrime 13y ago
As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up. Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
- weareconvo 13y ago
  True, but in this case, they were, because she was blowing something up... not conducting a science experiment. Which was the point of his post.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    "Experiment" in this case has, I think, a somewhat fuzzy definition. From her perspective, calling it a "science experiment" probably makes perfect sense.
    - weareconvo 13y ago
      Yeah, maybe cooking meth is a science experiment too in a certain light.
- readme 13y ago
  OK, well call it what it really is then: a science demonstration.
  - tiredofcareer 13y ago
    Her first statement while being interviewed was that she was performing a science experiment. That story changed under interview, and she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it.
    - u2328 13y ago
      How is the former different from the latter? Is that not still science? Are you not doing science if a teacher directs you to perform experiments for a grade?
      - readme 13y ago
        You mean, aside from the one being empirical, and the other just being a pyrotechnics demo? It makes no difference with respect to her punishment. It was unfair no matter what. I'm just pointing out the technicality.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        The point of mixing the chemicals and doing the procedure yourself is to understand it properly. Just being told about it in vague terms is far inferior in terms of learning. It becomes a mere 'demo' once you're well-practiced in the specific procedure. And she wasn't.
        readme 13y ago
        @dylan -- no kidding, that's why my comment says "With respect to her punishment"
    - 13y ago
rickhanlonii 13y ago
Blowing something up--even for only the sake of seeing what happens (exclusive of malicious intent)--is at it's core a scientific endeavor. From DNLee at the Scientific American blog[1]: >I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps. I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions. [1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2 http://goo.gl/8Lpp2
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right? Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'? There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't. >Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.
    - tiredofcareer 13y ago
      Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
To be as blunt as possible, if you take "blowing stuff up" off the table of inquiry then you are stunting intellectual curiosity by an enormous degree. Lest we forget, the most prestigious prizes in all of science, the Nobels, were created by a man who invented explosives.
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  It is a strange world we live in when making Drano bombs at a high school is compared to the work of Alfred Nobel.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - readme 13y ago
    Dude, everyone starts somewhere. She was 16 year old honor student when she did this. With the interest and aptitude she will go somewhere. You or your friends didn't do anything destructive in high school and get away with it? I did...
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    The point is that the spirit of scientific inquiry cannot be divorced from risk, danger, and even the occasional mischief. As we've heard over and over and over again, it is commonplace for folks who are going through their formative years and interested in science to do things like create experiments which go horribly awry or even to get up to dangerous mischief. As I mentioned elsewhere, there are appropriate ways to ensure that people learn the right lessons about potentially dangerous activities. And the right way is not "don't ever do it, don't even think about it, you'll be punished severely".
- DrStalker 13y ago
  The Nobel prize was specifically invented so Nobel would be remembered for something other than blowing things up, after he read an obituary describing him as "the merchant of death"
tiredofcareer 13y ago
I completely agree. She went back on her story that she was doing a science experiment while being interviewed, but everybody wants to stick to that story anyway. It's almost like everybody in the world wants her to be a scientist, and I pay dearly every time I raise this point here. I don't get it.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  I don't get it. Maybe it's because actual, grown-up scientists who nurtured their youthful interest in science by blowing things up were hoping that she'd be impressed by their support and decide to become a scientist herself.
  - tiredofcareer 13y ago
    And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people? Reckless is not a quality of a scientist. Why didn't we, the public, extend an invitation to "become a scientist" and pour support and legal defense funds to the Novato teenagers arrested for making the exact same thing OFF school property[1]? It's a felony charge in California, as well. > But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive. Let me be clear: mishandling one of these devices can blind you and remove limbs, and even if you buy the "I'm doing a science experiment" angle, she's doing it without training or safety considerations. This is a safety issue, not a science-hating issue, and there have been many charged and convicted before this young lady. I hate that we absolutely cannot have an objective conversation about this. [1]: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-to-schools-in-novato/nD7xh/ http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
    - vacri 13y ago
      As duaneb below points out, her intentions were not sinister. Negligence can be a crime, but do we really charge minors with crimes of negligence? Isn't that part of the problem of being a minor? Given that it wasn't done with malicious intent, this is a matter for school disciplining, not court time.
duaneb 13y ago
She is 16. I made far larger explosions when I was younger and older. Of course, I didn't do it on school property, but it's clear her interests were not at all sinister. Criminal charges are ridiculous. I would think detention would be more appropriate or calling her parents.
mikeash 13y ago
I think that once you charge someone with a felony for something that is pretty clearly not felonious, you basically eliminate the possibility of a middle ground. She'll be glorified or vilified (or both), but I think the ship has sailed for anything else. It would be nice if we could all sit down and have a rational discussion about just when it's OK to blow stuff up and what was right and wrong about this instance, but it seems to be essentially impossible now.
damoncali 13y ago
I blew up all kinds of stuff when I was a kid. Why? because I was interested in seeing what woud happen. That doesn't make me a criminal.
n3rdy 13y ago
Have you ever tried making a drano bomb? It's dangerous because its possible to lose some digits if you hold the thing in your hand too long, but if someone were intentionally trying to lose a finger that way, they would find it more difficult than they imagined.

mindcrime 13y ago

As others have said in previous threads, this girl wasn't conducting a science experiment, she was blowing something up. Those two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

weareconvo 13y ago
True, but in this case, they were, because she was blowing something up... not conducting a science experiment. Which was the point of his post.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  "Experiment" in this case has, I think, a somewhat fuzzy definition. From her perspective, calling it a "science experiment" probably makes perfect sense.
  - weareconvo 13y ago
    Yeah, maybe cooking meth is a science experiment too in a certain light.
readme 13y ago
OK, well call it what it really is then: a science demonstration.
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  Her first statement while being interviewed was that she was performing a science experiment. That story changed under interview, and she later admitted someone told her how and encouraged her to do it.
  - u2328 13y ago
    How is the former different from the latter? Is that not still science? Are you not doing science if a teacher directs you to perform experiments for a grade?
    - readme 13y ago
      You mean, aside from the one being empirical, and the other just being a pyrotechnics demo? It makes no difference with respect to her punishment. It was unfair no matter what. I'm just pointing out the technicality.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        The point of mixing the chemicals and doing the procedure yourself is to understand it properly. Just being told about it in vague terms is far inferior in terms of learning. It becomes a mere 'demo' once you're well-practiced in the specific procedure. And she wasn't.
      - readme 13y ago
        @dylan -- no kidding, that's why my comment says "With respect to her punishment"
  - 13y ago

rickhanlonii 13y ago

Blowing something up--even for only the sake of seeing what happens (exclusive of malicious intent)--is at it's core a scientific endeavor. From DNLee at the Scientific American blog[1]: >I can’t name a single scientist or engineer, who hadn’t blown up, ripped apart, disassembled something at home or otherwise cause a big ruckus at school all in the name of curiosity, myself included. Science is not a clean. It is very messy and it is riddled with mistakes and mishaps. I think it's time we start making a distinction between an explosion which is made with the motivation of violence and destruction, and just explosions. [1]: http://goo.gl/8Lpp2 http://goo.gl/8Lpp2

tiredofcareer 13y ago
So I should be able to manufacture pipe bombs because I'm curious how big the explosion is, then? Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, just curiosity to 'see what happens', so by your logic I should be square right? Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, because I have no malicious intent and just want 'see what happens'? There's a difference between science and doing something reckless that could, theoretically, endanger others without scientific safeguards in place. Public commentary on this issue is completely ignoring that.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Maybe I can try one out on my school's football field? No malicious intent, I blew up a bag of Oxygen/Acetylene on my school's football field. No malicious intent, can you think of a safer place to do it? I couldn't. >Or perhaps I could study the inhalant properties of anthrax powder at my desk at work, That's not even close to the same thing, but perhaps you should.
  - tiredofcareer 13y ago
    Yeah, that was called for. Thanks for the rational, objective discourse, there, by telling me I should kill myself with anthrax because I disagree with your opinion. Just reminds me why I love the Internet.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

To be as blunt as possible, if you take "blowing stuff up" off the table of inquiry then you are stunting intellectual curiosity by an enormous degree. Lest we forget, the most prestigious prizes in all of science, the Nobels, were created by a man who invented explosives.

tiredofcareer 13y ago
It is a strange world we live in when making Drano bombs at a high school is compared to the work of Alfred Nobel.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- readme 13y ago
  Dude, everyone starts somewhere. She was 16 year old honor student when she did this. With the interest and aptitude she will go somewhere. You or your friends didn't do anything destructive in high school and get away with it? I did...
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  The point is that the spirit of scientific inquiry cannot be divorced from risk, danger, and even the occasional mischief. As we've heard over and over and over again, it is commonplace for folks who are going through their formative years and interested in science to do things like create experiments which go horribly awry or even to get up to dangerous mischief. As I mentioned elsewhere, there are appropriate ways to ensure that people learn the right lessons about potentially dangerous activities. And the right way is not "don't ever do it, don't even think about it, you'll be punished severely".
DrStalker 13y ago
The Nobel prize was specifically invented so Nobel would be remembered for something other than blowing things up, after he read an obituary describing him as "the merchant of death"

tiredofcareer 13y ago

I completely agree. She went back on her story that she was doing a science experiment while being interviewed, but everybody wants to stick to that story anyway. It's almost like everybody in the world wants her to be a scientist, and I pay dearly every time I raise this point here. I don't get it.

nitrogen 13y ago
I don't get it. Maybe it's because actual, grown-up scientists who nurtured their youthful interest in science by blowing things up were hoping that she'd be impressed by their support and decide to become a scientist herself.
- tiredofcareer 13y ago
  And if she had hurt or, worse, killed herself or other people? Reckless is not a quality of a scientist. Why didn't we, the public, extend an invitation to "become a scientist" and pour support and legal defense funds to the Novato teenagers arrested for making the exact same thing OFF school property[1]? It's a felony charge in California, as well. > But officers did arrest a group of teenagers at the end of January for making and setting off Drano bombs in an open space off Palmer Drive. Let me be clear: mishandling one of these devices can blind you and remove limbs, and even if you buy the "I'm doing a science experiment" angle, she's doing it without training or safety considerations. This is a safety issue, not a science-hating issue, and there have been many charged and convicted before this young lady. I hate that we absolutely cannot have an objective conversation about this. [1]: http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-to-schools-in-novato/nD7xh/ http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/bottle-bomb-warning-goes-out-t...
  - vacri 13y ago
    As duaneb below points out, her intentions were not sinister. Negligence can be a crime, but do we really charge minors with crimes of negligence? Isn't that part of the problem of being a minor? Given that it wasn't done with malicious intent, this is a matter for school disciplining, not court time.

duaneb 13y ago

She is 16. I made far larger explosions when I was younger and older. Of course, I didn't do it on school property, but it's clear her interests were not at all sinister. Criminal charges are ridiculous. I would think detention would be more appropriate or calling her parents.

mikeash 13y ago

I think that once you charge someone with a felony for something that is pretty clearly not felonious, you basically eliminate the possibility of a middle ground. She'll be glorified or vilified (or both), but I think the ship has sailed for anything else. It would be nice if we could all sit down and have a rational discussion about just when it's OK to blow stuff up and what was right and wrong about this instance, but it seems to be essentially impossible now.

damoncali 13y ago

I blew up all kinds of stuff when I was a kid. Why? because I was interested in seeing what woud happen. That doesn't make me a criminal.

n3rdy 13y ago

Have you ever tried making a drano bomb? It's dangerous because its possible to lose some digits if you hold the thing in your hand too long, but if someone were intentionally trying to lose a finger that way, they would find it more difficult than they imagined.