Translational research in early neuroscience careers of high school students

Translational research in early neuroscience careers of high school students

Essentially, the knowledge of science alone offers little utility. Without the ability to investigate, apply and communicate, science serves no purpose. That is not to undermine the importance of scientific knowledge, but there currently exists a major fl aw in our high school educational system that inhibits meaningful learning experiences for most students. Application of science in local high schools is largely directed at improving performance on multiple-choice exams. Standardized tests taken by high school students are slowly progressing, changing their range of scientif i c inquiry in an attempt to demand a greater conceptual understanding of different scientif i c fi elds and requiring students to analyze datasets to answer questions.e most important of these exams for American students are the American College Test (ACT) – which has already incorporated science – and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) which in 2016 was revised by the College Board to bolster scientif i c theory.e changes to the subject areas of these exams are benef i cial, in that the exams are now challenging students to examine experimental data and use their basic knowledge to draw conclusions. However, we argue that students deserve a more complete education, which trains them to think critically and apply scientif i c knowledge practically, particularly those planning to enter careers in science. The scientific method is the foundation for which all scientif i c discoveries is built upon, yet valid and realistic representations of it are missing in our education system.

Improving education in math and science has been a consistent pitch of U.S. policymakers (Mervis, 2016). While current standardized tests include critical thinking and data analysis, we feel that our education system has done little to change the class room curriculum which focuses primarily on straight-forward memorization and regurgitation of facts.is method of teaching does very little to guide students to apply this information in a practical setting, let alone develop the skills and intuition necessary to devise a method to carry out an experiment. Indeed, many high school science courses do not include a single experiment or report requiring student-attained results. Additionally, it is of major concern that even in the courses that do allow students to participate in laboratory experiments, these experiments are not representative of the way in which science is conducted in real laboratories.e laboratory experiments done in high school classrooms are largely predicated on a single, determined outcome. As such, many high school students are likely to consider the steps of scientif i c method as little more than a series of headings used to organize a report. Outside of the classroom, however, the scientific method is the process by which ideas and questions are put to the test via meticulously planned and dynamically revised experiments in an attempt to explain the natural world around us.ere is not always a clear start and fi nish as experiments oen build upon each other or inspire new directions. Unfortunately, classroom science is oen presented to high school students as a linear, stepby-step process that is followed in order to ensure a desired result. In the world of laboratory or practical science, a result that does ref l ect what was originally hypothesized is rarely achieved in a single experiment, instead, negative or unexpected results warrant careful analysis of the original hypothesis or reevaluation of the methods that will be used to conduct further experiments. Conflicts between results and hypotheses are typically written off as failures in high school, without further investigation.e transition from the classroom to the laboratory has proven dif fi cult for many of science’s young minds (Bangser, 2008), which comes to no surprise given current methods of teaching. We are neither preparing our students for the challenges that career scientists work through daily, nor teaching them how to use the experimental method to advance science.

Predetermined, singular solutions pose another problem for students, they incorrectly convey the concept of failure to high school students. Too oen these experiments are designed to reach a positive set of data, so that if anything goes wrong, it is the fault of the student, and it is reflected as a poor or failing grade. Thus, there is a misconception, even at the high school level, that science only rewards positive outcomes. Accordingly, when experiments generate negative results, the temptation to change or remove data arises.is phenomenon is a common example of research misconduct. Although misconduct is generally attributed to factors such as a pressure to publish, a recent study suggests otherwise, noting that nearly all current policies put into ef f ect to reduce fraudulent science are wholly inef f ective (Fanelli et al., 2015).e authors instead propose that early intervention, simply educating and training future researchers early on in their career, may be the best course of action to reduce misconduct.

Failures in the laboratory setting to prove or disprove the hypothesis should never be regarded as non-scientif i c. Scientists oen learn more from unexpected results or procedures gone awry than from perfectly performed experiments (Kluger, 2014).e unpredictability of an experiment’s outcome is what makes science exciting and worthwhile. Students are much more likely to learn from and appreciate their experiments if they are given the real world opportunity to conduct experiments without fear of unexpected results harming their grade. Some standardized science curriculums, such as the laboratory investigation portion of Advanced Placement Biology, have taken steps towards this goal, but a more widespread, national standard needs to be mandated so to improve the overall state of our scientific curriculum. Instead of criticizing students for poor outcomes, the teachers should require students to explain in great detail what part of their experiment went wrong that produced the given results. For example, organic chemistry laboratory course students are expected to follow the methods in excruciating detail in order to synthesize a particular molecule. Incorrectly performing any of the steps can produce a different molecule or reaction. When taking this laboratory course, students who generate unexpected outcomes are usually encouraged to thoroughly explain which of the procedures went awry, and how these errors affected the identity of the final product.is method of teaching sheds a new light on students’ concept of failure. Trouble-shooting is a critical part of science and it is a skill that comes with experience of both failure and success.

Our laboratory at the University of South Florida has for the past decade maintained a program offering exposure to scientif i c research for local high school students with a summer volunteer positions.ese volunteer positions entail approximately 3 months of hands-on training, and permit students to partake in an immersive experience, involving them in every step of the scientif i c process - from experimental design, to animal model surgeries, tissue processing,in vitroexperimentation, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Students are given personal mentors and rotate with each of the lab’s post-doctoral researchers. We connect students with a specif i c research project– either a simple project of their own, or as contributors to a larger ongoing study – allowing them to become personally invested in the progress of the study. Importantly, the length of these volunteer stints are long enough to allow for the routine failures which are inherent in the experimentation process to be experienced, allowing for a deeper level of critical analysis and fl exibility to be exercised by the students throughout the process. In doing this, we not only allow students to have genuine contact with scientif i c processes, but also introduce the ideas which our lab focuses on, such as neurodegeneration, neuroregeneration, and neuroprotective therapies. For many of our students, this is the fi rst exposure to such topics in neurology and neurosurgery, and oen sparks ongoing interest in these biomedical specialty fi elds.

Other opportunities do exist for high school students to gain translational research exposure that harnesses critical thinking, such as that experience gained from hands-on research laboratory rotations –but these options are limited. A few internationally renowned programs, such as Research Summer Institute (RSI), gather the nation’s top scholars every year for research, and many universities offer summer internship programs similar to ours for high school students (RSI website, 2017). These programs fall short of making larger educational impacts however, as they are traditionally selective, limited in scope, and last for about 4–6 weeks. Indeed, even our own program is only open to 3–5 exceptional students per summer.

To get a true grasp on scientific research, all students should be exposed to scientific endeavors that require collaboration,trial-and-error, and ef f ective communication.e short 4–6 week extent of most programs fails to convey the nature of high caliber research which demands months, if not years, to complete and publish. Some programs such as MIT’s year-long Program for Research in Mathematics, Engineering, and Science for high school students (MIT PRIMES) or Phillips Academy Andover’s built-in research curriculum account for this by allowing students a much longer amount of time to carry out effective research, but opportunities like this are extremely uncommon and not practical on a larger scale (Andover Independent Research, 2017; MIT PRIMES, 2017). To make matters worse, many of today’s best and brightest young minds are shying away from the prospect of devoting their time to science and discovery in favor of more lucrative jobs. Grants for everything from basic research to clinical trials are becoming increasingly dif fi cult to obtain, and younger students are taking notice (e MIT Committee to Evaluate the Innovation Def i cit, 2015).

How can we go about fixing a lack of available research infrastructure for the next generation of researchers? Adding more summer programs and implementing new national education standards are both important steps in the right direction, but not complete solutions. We propose that ef f ective and meaningful change to the high school science educational system must involve restructuring the methods we apply to teach our students scientific concepts, and improving accesses to and quality of extracurricular activities. Practically, this entails implementing curriculum which addresses the many issues discussed earlier, namely the presentation of the scientif i c method, classroom laboratory experiment design, and the perspective we teach on scientif i c failure. Additionally, improving the access and quality of extracurricular activities means that we, the scientific community, must engage our laboratories with the community, connecting with schools and reaching out to students. Similarly, responsibility falls on the governmental legislative bodies to increase investments in scientific education by supplementing the costs which these extracurricular programs will undoubtedly cost, or even offering small stipends in order to encourage students to volunteer for summer research programs. We would like to propose an additional measure: grants for high schools and their students. A research grant awarded to a high school student is practically unheard of in this day and age even when teenagers are being internationally recognized for innovative and transformative work more so than any point in history. Competitions that recognize and reward high school student’s science talent such as the Intel and Siemens Science Fairs have resulted in incredible discoveries and ideas from young individuals (Society for Science, 2016). A system of awarding monetary research grants to high school age students would not only combat the perception that science is not a lucrative fi eld, but also give young minds an opportunity to showcase their ideas.ese changes could make signif i cant headway in improving the way in which our students learn and apply the scientif i c knowledge which may be so valuable to their future careers.

Interestingly, a similar call to revisit neuroscience education at the level of medical school has been recently advanced in an ef f ort to promote student interest in neurology and neurosurgery (Tieniber and Readdy, 2016). Early exposure and mentorship in neuroscience may require highly motivated medical educators and neuroscience specialists to positively impact student training at the curriculum level, which should begin in the formative fi rst and second years of medical education, especially during the summer months when the students have free time away from the medical school classroom setting. In particular, the involvement of the students in neuroscience research projects nurtures the student appreciation of the translation of basic science knowledge to clinical applications (Agarwal et al., 2013). Such research-oriented curriculum in medical school, when harnessed with our proposed training of high students who have already expressed interest in the neuroscience fi eld, should increase the number of biomedical researchers and clinical practitioners. Because of the expected 19% shortage in clinical neurologists by 2025 in view of the aging population, a concerted ef f ort is necessary in training the next generation of students in neuroscience, a key scientif i c fi eld that holds promise in our understanding the pathologies of age-related disorders and their treatments (Dall et al., 2013).

In light of the current volatile political atmosphere in the US and around the world, it has become increasingly important that the leaders of the scientif i c community invest time and ef f ort into preparing the appropriate educational program for the next generation of scientists. Our current educational model is outdated, and no longer prepares the students to meet the high expectations of the scientif i c career path. Additionally, by not presenting the scientif i c fi eld in positive light, we are failing to invigorate and entice the brightest young minds into following these scientific career paths. Thus, by replacing the current education paradigm with a system which emphasizes planning, collaboration, communication and discovery, we provide a service to both the students, as well as our future biomedical scientif i c fi eld. Rigid, pre-determined lab experiments should be replaced by small group, student-led investigations of modern topics under the supervision of, and with the consultative access to our top researchers in the scientif i c community. A high school student’s early entrance into university-level research projects would allow an immediate translation of classroom theory to practice, and should better prepare the student for the dynamic world of scientif i c research, and convey the appealing aspects of careers in biomedical science. It is also imperative that these improved opportunities are extended across the educational system, and are not exclusive opportunities offered only to the nation’s most affluent and financially-fortunate students. The future educational program catered to a young high school student who is interested in a scientif i c career should harness a wealth of academic learning, but also ample training in practical research laboratory settings, in order to give this nation’s students the most imaginative, discovery-driven, and impactful education and training in the fi eld of biomedical science.

Zachary M. Diamandis, Nicholas S. Diaco, Kelsey Duncan, Marci Crowley, M. Grant Liska, Cesar V. Borlongan*

Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair, Department of Neurosurgery and Brain Repair, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA

*Correspondence to:Cesario V. Borlongan, Ph.D., cborlong@health.usf.edu.

Accepted:2017-04-10

orcid:0000-0002-2966-9782 (Cesar V. Borlongan)

Agarwal N, Norrmen-Smith IO, Tomei KL, Prestigiacomo CJ, Gandhi CD (2013) Improving medical student recruitment into neurological surgery: a single institution’s experience. World Neurosurg 80:745-750.

Andover Independent Research (2016) https://www.andover.edu/Academics/NaturalSciences/IndependentResearch/Pages/default.aspx

Bangser M (2008) Preparing high school students for successful transitions to postsecondary education and employment. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/ fi les/PreparingHSStudentsforTransition_073108.pdf

Dall TM, Storm MV, Chakrabarti R, Drogan O, Keran CM, Donofrio PD, Henderson VW, Kaminski HJ, Stevens JC, Vidic TR (2013) Supply and demand analysis of the current and future US neurology workforce. Neurology 81:470-478.

Fanelli D, Costas R, Lariviere V (2015) Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, a ff ect scienti fi c integrity. PLoS One 10:e0127556.

Kluger J (2014) Why scientists should celebrate failed experiments. In Time. http:// time.com/3206754/publication-bias-null-results/

Mervis J (2016) U.S. funding. Pitching science: A history of Obama’s research budgets. Science 351:798-799.

MIT PRIMES: Program for Research in Mathematics, Engineering and Science for High School Students. http://math.mit.edu/research/highschool/primes/index.php 2016.

RSI Admissions Guidelines (2017) https://www.cee.org/apply-rsi

Society for Science (2016) Intel Science Talent Search Alumni Honors. https://student.societyforscience.org/society-alumni-honors

Tieniber AD, Readdy WJ (2016) Remodeling neuroscience education in medical student training: how early exposure and mentorship are promoting student interest in neurology and neurosurgery. Neural Regen Res 11:1064-1066.

10.4103/1673-5374.205097

How to cite this article:Diamandis ZM, Diaco NS, Duncan K, Crowley M, Liska MG, Borlongan CV (2017) Translational research in early neuroscience careers of high school students. Neural Regen Res 12(4):586-587.

Open access statement:This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.