scientific essay competition

Winning Essays

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_button2 title=”Go back” style=”square” color=”sky” size=”sm” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yalescientific.org%2Fsynapse%2Fcontest-winners%2F|title:Contest%20Winners|”][vc_empty_space height=”32px”][vc_column_text css_animation=”top-to-bottom” el_class=”winning-essays”]

Congratulations to the winner of the 2019 Yale Scientific Synapse High School Essay Contest!

This year’s essay prompt was:

There is a moment that defines success, that “ah-ha” moment when the barrier of your expectations of what is possible to achieve is shattered. Yet, for every Nobel Prize success story or every innovation that is deemed media frenzy worthy, there are hundreds of breakthroughs that go unnoticed by the general public. Choose an important but under-discussed breakthrough from the past 5 years, and describe why it is so significant.

Entangled in a Quantum Future

1st Place Winner, Yale Scientific Magazine National Essay Competition 2019 Kelvin Kim Bergen Catholic High School, Oradell, NJ

The rate of discovery in science has accelerated dramatically since the 20th century. This should not be surprising since our knowledge base doubles approximately every 13 months. Some scientists even predict that the “internet of things” will lead to even more dramatic accelerations. Many of these advancements have gained widespread recognition while others are relatively unknown to the general public.

For example, Chinese researchers at Shanghai’s University of Science and Technology made advances on data teleportation based on quantum entanglement but remained underrecognized. In 2017, this team, led by Ji-Gang Ren, shattered previous distance records for such teleportation experiments. The previous record, set in 2015, achieved successful transmissions using 104 kilometers of superconducting molybdenum silicide fiber. Firing a high-altitude laser from Tibet to the orbiting Micius satellite, the Chinese team achieved successful transmissions over distances up to 1400 kilometers. Later, they successfully transmitted quantum data from the satellite back to Earth at distances ranging from 1600 to 2400 kilometers. In doing so, they demonstrated the viability of someday being able to create a “quantum internet,” over which information could be exchanged far more securely than is possible today.

The phrase quantum teleportation is somewhat misleading. In the Chinese experiments, no particles were physically teleported from Earth to space like most people might imagine after watching sci-fi programs like Star Trek . “Quantum teleportation” involves information, not matter. To grasp this, we need to understand the basic nature of quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement is a way of describing two particles with matching quantum states. The states in question, of which there are four possibilities, have to do with vertical or horizontal polarization. The entangled particles are linked in such a way as to mutually influence one another. Moreover, when one particle is observed, information about the other can be known. These effects hold true even if the entangled particles are separated by great distances.

Dr. Chien-Shiung Wu first experimentally demonstrated quantum entanglement in a laboratory, showing an Einstein-type correlation between two photons that were well separated from one another. Back then, all she could do was show correlations between entangled photons separated by a small distance. The experiment conducted by Dr. Ren’s team in 2017 is fundamentally the same as the experiment that was conducted by Dr. Wu almost seventy years ago. However, the Chinese researchers’ achievement is significant because they strove to do what Dr. Wu did at a far greater scale. Instead of performing the experiment in a laboratory, the Chinese physicists demonstrated entanglement between a photon on Earth and a photon on an orbiting satellite. These particles were separated by distances of at least 500 kilometers—the greatest distances that quantum entanglement have ever been recorded. This accomplishment was all the more impressive as it was achieved using detectors on a satellite that was traveling around Earth at orbital speeds.

Quantum entanglement means that data can seemingly be “teleported” since the information about one of the particles in an entangled pair will always reflect information relevant to the other particle. This is the main concept behind the potential applications being investigated by scientists. While nothing may be physically teleported, the fact that information about an object can be accessed instantaneously from anywhere has significant implications for the future.

One potential application of this concept is the quantum internet. The researchers showed that working with entangled particles while they are separated and moving at fast speeds is possible. This could provide a means of ensuring data security. Since the mere act of observing a particle changes its quantum properties, recipients of information over a quantum network could instantly know, by comparing the state of the paired particle at the point of transmission to that of its partner at the point of reception, not only if a message had been decrypted, but even if it had been merely observed. To this end, the Chinese scientists—in collaboration with European partners at the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences—aim to establish a secure quantum-encrypted channel by next year, and a global network in the following decade.

It is not surprising that the first practical applications of quantum entanglement are expected to appear in the realm of cyber-security. The regular internet is vulnerable to hacking because data still flows through cables in the form of bits, into which the hacker can tap and decrypt. A bit can either represent a zero or a one, but not both at the same time. The quantum internet, on the other hand, doesn’t have this problem because it utilizes qubits, a quantum state a particle is in when it represents both zero and one simultaneously. If a hacker tried to access a stream of qubits, the qubits would seem to have values that are either zero or one, but not both. This means that by trying to access information in the stream of qubits, the hacker would just end up destroying the data he is trying to hack.

Beyond this, the term “quantum internet” doesn’t actually have a clear definition. “Quantum internet is still a vague term,” explains physicist Thomas Jennewein of the University of Waterloo.

In summary, the research being conducted by Dr. Ren, his colleagues, and their European partners on data teleportation via quantum entanglement is significant because it represents the scaling-up of this technology to the point where its practical application is imminent. Before 2017, no previous experiments in this field had been done over comparable distances with such reliable results. The fact that global partners are planning to establish secure quantum channels based on these experiments in the near future ensures not only that such networks will soon be a global reality, but also that scientists will be delving ever deeper into the mystery of quantum entanglement. This research places humanity on the threshold of a new world of quantum applications that we can scarcely imagine today.

Congratulations to the winners of the 2018 Yale Scientific Synapse High School Essay Contest!

A Plantastic Solution to an Aqueous Problem

By John Lin

Water covers about 71 percent of Earth’s surface, but throughout the world, this natural resource appears to be drying up.1​ ​Due to global warming, desertification is rapidly spreading across the world. The world is finding that critical freshwater reserves are disappearing in the face of increasing population growth.2​ ​Just as more water is needed, less water is available. However, cacti have dealt with this problem for millennia and have adapted to arid climates. We can learn from these prickly plants to solve one of the world’s most pressing problems.

Our current stopgap measures are failing. Most modern water storage methods use jerry cans, lidded buckets, and clay pots but require backbreaking labor that is predominantly done by females.3​ ​UNICEF estimates that across the world, women and girls spend 200 million hours collecting water each day, forcing them to abandon their education and employment and enter a cycle of poverty and dependence.4​ ​Additionally, this water is often dirty, resulting in major waterborne disease outbreaks that devastate developing nations, Finally, these buckets require a tradeoff between water supplies, temperature, and sanitation. For example, clay pots lose water to evaporation but are cooler.5​ ​On the other hand, buckets create a warm environment ripe for bacteria growth.

Instead of using costly chemical reactions to synthesize hydrogen and oxygen, scientists can find a cheap solution in biomimicry. Succulent plants are uniquely adapted to absorb and retain water from their arid surroundings. Learning from them will help us efficiently deal with desertification and minimize water conflicts. Cacti are among the most effective succulents, surviving in habitats from the Atacama Desert to the Patagonian steppe.6​ ​Semiarid and arid areas experience varying levels of rainfall, demanding different tissue thicknesses and structural designs. We should study cacti to produce location-specific containers that can absorb and store safe water at optimal temperatures.

Scientists should explore water retrieval methods including cacti’s water absorption. Cacti build shallow roots that can branch out, allowing them to react quickly to rainfall.7​ ​We can utilize capillary action, much like plant roots, to gather water at a cheap energy cost. Researchers at the Chinese Academy of the Sciences are studying artificial root systems that could store rainwater.8​ ​Some cacti also store fog water, thanks to spines that collect water molecules. Scientists from Beihang University are already developing similar structures by electrospinning polyimide and polystyrene.9​ ​Moreover, this could help improve filtration systems. Dr. Norma Alcantar from the University of South Florida found that prickly pear cactus gum effectively removes sediment and bacteria from water.1​ 0​ We could eliminate common diseases, free women to pursue studies, leisure, or careers, and save millions of lives.

Researchers can also improve water storage by focusing on cacti because of their high water retention. Because of their fleshy tissue, many cacti can hold large amounts of water. In fact, Charles Gritzner, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Geography at South Dakota State University, notes that some can store up to 2 tons of water, or 1,800 liters.1​ 1​ We can learn from their thick structures to maximize the quantity of water stored. Cacti also have unique structural designs including protective hair to deflect sunlight, which defends against dangerous heat levels.1​ 2​ Cacti have additionally developed waxy skin to prevent water loss.1​ 3​ We can combine this with biodegradable material to promote environmental sustainability by avoiding plastic. These innovations fix the current temperature-water loss tradeoff and maximize utility.

This large, bulky bucket would be incredibly adaptable. In foggier areas like the Atacama Desert, artificial spines would help collect water, while mechanical roots would work better in drier places. The layer of gum-like lining on the inner walls of the pail would improve sanitation. The water would be protected from heat through intricate designs of folds and hair. The outer waxy coating would help preserve water while maintaining cooler temperatures. Humanitarian organizations could distribute this in developing nations, ensuring that each family has a stable, safe source of water.

The consequences of ignoring water shortages are dire because water is the most precious resource of life. Not only is approximately 60 percent of the adult human body made of water, each American uses around 80-100 gallons of water every day.1​ 4,15​ This has promoted hygiene and eliminated disease outbreaks, with handwashing alone reducing diarrheal disease-related deaths by almost 50%.1​ 6​ With antibiotic-resistant bacteria developing rapidly, hygiene is critical for public health. Water is also heavily used in food production, irrigating 62.4 million acres of American cropland in 2010.1​ 7​ Agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater withdrawals each year.1​ 8​ As global warming intensifies regional climates, more water is needed. Otherwise, the world would be torn apart by hunger and thirst.

Losing water will also have major geopolitical implications. The World Economic Forum has ranked water crises among the five most impactful global issues for the past four years.1​ 9​ As countries compete for an ever-shrinking supply of water, wars are bound to break out. The Global Policy Forum predicts that more than 50 countries across five continents will likely be forced into water conflicts.2​ 0​ Already, nuclear armed states such as India and Pakistan engage in water fights.2​ 1​ The resulting wars could claim billions of innocent human lives.

Although more advanced technology is being developed, biomimicry provides a cheap, clean, and quick answer to the billions of people surviving on inadequate and unsafe water. Unless we take action, water wars, food shortages, and disease outbreaks will tear the world apart. For the sake of humanity’s survival, we must turn to cacti to guide our water foraging efforts in the developing world.

Congratulations to the winners of the 2017 Yale Scientific Synapse High School Essay Contest!

If Science were to make a huge breakthrough in the next year, what do you think would be the most beneficial one to society? Why?

Breaking Through Ocean Acidification

1st Place Winner, Yale Scientific Magazine National Essay Competition 2017 Clara Benadon Poolesville High School, MD

As a Marylander, one of my favorite things to do is make the trek up to the Chesapeake Bay. Its sparkling waters and abundant wildlife set it apart as a prime jewel of the East Coast. Nothing can compare to the experience of paddling down the Potomac River on a sunny day, the boughs of a sycamore arching overhead.

Apart from being a stunner, the Bay provides major cultural and economic benefits. Its unique way of life is perfectly encapsulated in the small towns of Smith Island, where watermen make a living from the estuary’s riches. On a recent visit, one local said to me, “We truly build our lives around the water.” From the local fisherman to larger commercial operations, the Chesapeake provides $3.39 billion annually in seafood sales alone, part of a total economic value topping $1 trillion. The stability of these waters is endangered by the growing problem of ocean acidification. This occurs when the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed into bodies of water, causing surging acidity levels. Acidification leads to the protective carbonate coverings of shellfish to disintegrate, killing off large amounts of oysters, mussels, and scallops. Oyster reefs filter the Bay; without a thriving population, harmful pollutants run rampant. The low oxygen conditions caused by high acidity also make it hard for fish to breathe. Even with survivable oxygen levels, low pH can be fatal for fish.

The plummeting numbers of these Chesapeake staples make a dent on the economy. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland and Virginia have suffered losses exceeding $4 billion over the last three decades stemming from the decline of oyster health and distribution. High acidity causes oysters’ growth to be stunted, so that shellfish fisheries cannot profit from the smaller, thinner shells.

The losses aren’t economic alone. An estimated 2,700 species call the Bay their home, a remarkable level of biodiversity that is threatened by ocean acidification. The loss of even one species causes a ripple effect through the entire food web, sending it into a state of unbalance.  According to a 2004 study in Science, the survival of threatened and nonthreatened species is closely intertwined: when an endangered species goes extinct, dependent ones suffer. Moreover, biodiversity keeps in check the amount of carbon dioxide in any body of water. Zoom out from the Chesapeake to the world ocean. Skyrocketing acidity is present in almost every aquatic biome on our planet. When pH is low, coral reefs cannot absorb the calcium carbonate that makes up their skeleton. Corals, along with snails, clams, and urchins, disintegrate en masse. A particularly disturbing image of ocean acidification is its effect on the neurology of fish. Their decision making skills are significantly delayed to the level where they sometimes swim directly into the jaws of predators.

Economically, the UN estimates that ocean acidification will take a $1 trillion bite out of the world economy by the year 2100. This massive cost has direct human implications, including health, job security, and cultural heritage. In addition, the economies of many countries are wholly dependent upon reef based tourism and other activities built around the water.

We need a solution to our world’s rapidly acidifying oceans. If science were to make a major breakthrough, solving this problem would be beneficial to our economy and ecology on an unprecedented scale. Methods that at first appeared brilliant have either been limited by their feasibility or come to be outweighed by their negative side effects, ultimately prolonging the search for a solution.

The unorthodox method of dumping enormous amounts of iron sulphate into the water is based on the principle that iron fertilizes phytoplankton, microscopic organisms found in every body of water. The energy phytoplankton gain from the iron allows them to bloom, absorbing CO 2 from the atmosphere and the ocean. When the phytoplankton die they sink to the bottom of the ocean, locking the CO 2 there for centuries. In 1988, the late oceanographer John Martin proclaimed, “Give me a half tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.” It is theorized that fertilizing 2% of the Southern Ocean could set back global warming by 10 years.

Why not implement this magic fix? First off, iron fertilization has come under fire for its negative side effects. A 2016 study in Nature determined that the planktonic blooms would deplete the waters of necessary nutrients. Additionally, when the large bloom dies, it would create large “dead zones,” areas devoid of oxygen and life. Side effects aside, this technique may be entirely ineffective. Carbon dioxide may simply move up the food chain when the phytoplankton are eaten and be respired back into the water. This was observed when the 2009 Lohafex expedition unloaded six tons of iron off the Southern Atlantic. The desired phytoplankton bloom it caused was promptly gobbled up by miniscule organisms known as copepods.

The alternative solution of planting kelp is less drastic. Revitalizing expansive forests of algae has proven to be effective in sucking up underwater CO 2 . Kelp grows as quickly as 18 inches a day, and once established offers the added benefits of providing a habitat for marine species and removing anthropogenic nutrient pollution. Researchers from the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, who have been monitoring the capability of this process, have found that kelp forests are effective at diminishing acidification on a local scale. While planting carbonsucking species across the ocean would not be a feasible global solution, kelp forests could help solve the acidification crises found in less expansive areas.

To date, there is not one straightforward fix to combat ocean acidification and its corrosive effects. If a scientific breakthrough were to occur, it would perhaps be comprised of a combination of methods. However, as science and technology continuously evolve, the key to deacidifying our oceans may well turn out to be something beyond our wildest dreams.

A Revolutionary Combatant to Global Warming

2nd Place Winner, Yale Scientific Magazine National Essay Competition 2017 Arjun Marwaha Fairmont Schools, Anaheim CA

Accelerated industrialization and incredible innovation by the human species has completely morphed our 4.54 billion year-old planetary home in just a few centuries. Through feats of agriculture and language, humans have profoundly suggested superiority over all domains that dwell on Earth. Just recently, the culmination of human capability appears evident; through scientific means such as CRISPR’s gene splicing technique and Elon Musk’s inconceivable vision to send people around the moon, humanity is on the verge of a new creation: a feasible “dominance” over our galaxy.

Nonetheless, several ramifications have scarred our Earth ever since humans have undertook these robust, industrial actions. As first priority, scientists should direct their focus onto preserving our planet from the cataclysmic effects of the greenhouse effect — the trapped carbon dioxide gas in Earth’s atmosphere which thereby generates additional heat into our planet. This can be achieved by developing a renewable energy-based device to chemically convert carbon dioxide into clean products, which in turn will inherently benefit our environment and most definitely the society with the future generation of useful, renewable products.

One prominent solar example of this was physically engineered at the University of Illinois in Chicago, by mechanical engineer Amin Salehi-Khojin, in July of 2016. In their prototyping phase, the research team was able to construct a device that can absorb carbon dioxide, utilize sunlight to break CO2 into “syngas” (gas similar to hydrogen and carbon monoxide), and then use this synthesized gas directly as diesel or be turned into other liquid fuels. Just from this experiment alone, it is discernible that the potential to create such a device to eliminate the excess carbon dioxide exists within the scientific community; thus one can expect multiple breakthroughs in this field in the coming year alone, from solar to maybe even wind based technology. Furthermore, this prototype exemplifies the truly infinite possibilities that renewable energy sources can harness by converting the harmful gas into beneficial compounds.

Indisputably, this methodology has positive consequences, with little to no risk, hence producing an overall positive for both the Earth’s maintenance, and all animals and humans in regards to air quality. However, one may argue that this “breakthrough” has existed for epochs: plants, as they convert the carbon dioxide from the air into valuable sugars through the cyclical, self-sufficient process known as photosynthesis. But due to recent industrialization leading to deforestation, plants in general are becoming more and more rare in an industrial-based city. So without having the plants absorb the toxins and carbon dioxide in the air, the breeding ground for extreme pollution in cities, like New Delhi, India, exists. This eventually triggers an urgent necessity for renewable methods to get rid of these pollutants and toxins; and if plants cease to exist in harsh climates where toxins exist, then this innovative technique of splitting the carbon dioxide into useful products surely will have the ability to stay in industrial cities like these; and if they have capability to withstand the worst toxins, they surely will have the staying power in the international market.

In addition to its efficiency, the mere utilization of such a technology will sincerely resonate with the scientific community. Since numerous attempts have been made by scientists to find sustainable solutions to the greenhouse effect, the community — and more so the public — are desperate for a panacea. This solution not only thrives off the absorption of carbon dioxide, but it also creates several efficient products including but not limited to gaseous compounds that can provide liquid fuel or diesel, thereby acting as a detriment to further carbon emissions. Now, the world has seen this technology exist in one small laboratory. Through extensive research on maximizing the utility of the materials, the next massive breakthrough will be attempting to scale this technology to the international market, while ensuring that this device can be inexpensive as possible so that the scientific community can make some slot of profit. For this effective cost and efficient design, this device can essentially gain international acclaim after scientists give their approval to showcase a brand of these carbon emission combatants, all of which exist in different shape or form but run on renewable, green energy.

Without a cast of a doubt, the renewably-energized devices will completely revolutionize our approach to global warming. By developing a method that can concurrently reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and generating “split” products that promote green energy, the scientific community would absolutely gain the same recognition of this breakthrough as, for instance, circulating two men around the moon. This ideology, in effect, prompts people to question who they really are. Scientists are curious and explorative. But can they halt this mindset and instead focus on a more impeding dynamic: introspection of our character. Thus, it is only ethically sound that we as humans understand one blatant reality: our curiosity has, in essence, disrupted the nature of our Earth. So, it is only morally correct that we humans disband from our brigades in space, leave the hospital’s dissections and illnesses, and truly save our only home known to man.

Congratulations to the winners of the third Yale Scientific Synapse High School Essay Contest!

This year’s essay prompt was: “How does bias affect the course of scientific research? Discuss how public and personal bias has hindered and facilitated scientific progress.”

The Duality of Bias

By rocel beatriz balmes 1st place winner, yale scientific magazine national essay competition 2014 haines city high school lake alfred, florida.

Traditionally defined as a partiality towards particular people, objects, or beliefs, bias has developed a rather negative connotation—particularly in science—of resulting in unfair advantages and, thus, inaccurate results. Though this has, in effect, rendered it equivalent to a social pariah to the scientific community, throughout the years, it has persisted as a definitive barrier to scientific and social progress.

Take, for example, the emergence of “Social Darwinism” in the late 1800s. Despite the fact that Darwin focused only on biological evidence in animals and seldom mentioned ramifications for humans, public bias took the words of famed eugenicist Francis Galton and perpetuated the idea of a biologically superior race. Observing and dissecting the differences between their own fair features and the large lips and dark skin of their slaves, Americans came to the conclusion that they were the de facto superior race in all aspects of humanity, despite the lack of scientific empiricism. Instead of obtaining impartial evidence for their superiority—of which, they would actually find none—they focused their efforts on finding justification for their enslavement and systematic dehumanization of African Americans for centuries to come. Though this pseudoscience was nothing but a gross perversion of Darwin’s widely supported Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection, the concept of a harsher eugenics outlined by Vacher de Lapouge based on this very theory and the idea of white supremacy became the underpinnings of Nazi Germany’s eugenics agenda. This form of scientific racism, verified only by the bias of a racist, ethnocentric society led to the creation of global selective breeding programs that eliminated—and, in fact, continue to eliminate—millions of innocent people leaving only masses of unrealized potential for scientific and social progress.

Unfortunately, such bias is not unique to eras of the past. From the very dawn of its conception in the mid-to-late 1900s, stem cell research has been influenced by bias. Though the utilization of the cells as transformative tissues has been revolutionary, this was only possible with the extraction of the inner cell mass in a human embryo. Such procedures, when first introduced, shocked the public as a process strikingly similar to the very destruction of human life, regardless of the undeveloped status of said human. Researchers were swayed by some of the strongest proponents of the ban of such procedures. Rather than specific religious denominations or political parties, the conflict attracted masses of people from differing backgrounds to forge a formidable opposition to the progression of health science. Consequently, some research institutions succumbed to the period’s public and private moral bias and halted experimentation. That is not to say, of course, that this bias was in any way intended with malice or aimed to deprive severely ill people of life-saving stem cells. Bias—public bias in particular—is oftentimes muddled with the fear of the unorthodox and the unconventional. In this case, though the bias did prevent scientific progression, it is important to note that it was influenced by a people that was, perhaps, not quite ready for such progression.

Alternatively, bias can provide the push that some societies need in order to develop and revolutionize. Just as most words in the English language, the word bias is double-faceted by nature. Far from the unscrupulous reputation it usually holds in science, it can also be defined as a predilection or a fondness for something—an emotion that all scientists must have in order to undertake the challenges of their satisfying yet simultaneously grating careers. Thus, through the years, bias has had the dual role of barrier and catalyst to major scientific breakthroughs.

Take, for example, the conflict with stem cell research. Stem-cell pioneer James Thomson was a researcher in one of only two laboratories in 1998 to successfully extract stem cells and, at the same time, destroy the human embryo from which they were plucked. In a New York Times Article titled “Man Who Helped Start Stem Cell War May End It”, Thomson says that he knew of the social stigma that surrounded his research and that he himself was, at first, very skeptical of the moral implications and had even worked with ethicists before he unknowingly detonated a moral bomb with his ground-breaking scientific research. When public opinion proved to be a seemingly significant barrier biased against his progress, however, instead of backing down and raising the metaphorical white flag of surrender, Thomson’s determination was only fueled by this bias against him. Working with researchers from Kyoto University, Thomson helped developed a new technique of adding a few genes to ordinary skin cells to make them function like stem cells. The scientific ramifications of this ethically sound method are infinite. Aside from the obvious benefits in research, the medical world is now bombarded with revolutionary new methods and treatments as vital tissue generation without the need to wait for donors becomes a possibility. Though the road ahead may still be paved with challenges in production for Thomson, without the public and his own personal bias of morality pressuring him, his systematic search for and discovery of an ethical method would not have become a reality.

Though one might be tempted to label the above example as the exemption to the rule of bias’ role in science, it is important to note that some of the greatest innovations and fundamental truths of our world were conceived under researchers’ personal bias of belief in their ideas. From Galileo Galilei and Louis Pasteur, to Marie Curie and Jane Goodall, these scientists lived during eras during which they were ridiculed by a public inexorably biased against them for daring to have an alternative model of the world and, in the latter individuals’ cases, a gender unorthodox for a scientist. Yet, personal conviction, determination and, yes, bias led these three scientists to international acclaim. Indeed, bias possesses a dual dynamism that allows it to stand as an obstruction to and creator of scientific progress. Suspended between these two polarities is where revolution, innovation, and true science emerge.

Everything is Awesome

By marina tinone 2nd place winner, yale scientific magazine national essay competition 2014 william h. hall high school west hartford, connecticut.

My brother and I were blessed to have our own Lego collections. Our rooms were lined with shelves and shelves of our own creations, some of them built using the instructions from the Lego sets, most of them made by ourselves. We ditched the boring booklets in the box and just made what we needed.

For my brother, his bricks were used to build complex helicopters and submarines, usually creating machines significantly more complicated than the ones designed by Lego. When I asked him about his submarine, and why all the pieces he used weren’t the same color, he told me that the submarine was supposed to be invisible, so the colors didn’t need to match. Besides, the hinges, the pulleys, the contraptions he made by himself– those were the important parts.

In my world, my Lego creations weren’t invisible. My stuffed animals needed sleds to play in the snow, houses to sleep in, school buses to go to school in the morning and come back in the evening. My machines were not as complex as my brother’s, but they worked, and my colors matched. The stuffed animals needed their yellow school buses, and I thought a sled would look nice in blue.

My brother’s Legos always impressed our parents. He definitely had the eyes of an engineer, a scientist. Now, when Mom and Dad looked into my room and watched their daughter raise a blue sled loaded with stuffed rabbits into the air, well… the kids were different, that’s for sure.

Watching my brother receive praise for his creations from our chemist and engineer parents, I thought that science was restricted to those interests. Science was for the ones who made Legos for the sake of the machine, not for the ones whose stuffed rabbits wore scarves.

I wonder– did the world think the same way I did when Rosalind Picard introduced affective computing in 1997? Upon learning more about the limbic system and its role in shaping perception, Picard realized that it was not enough to simply create new microprocessors and develop energy-efficient chips if they didn’t interact with the user’s emotions and social cues. Technology needed a more human touch to develop. When she created this novel field and opened it to the world, did her peers find such emotion-based studies unworthy? Did they believe that such “science” was an aberration to the disciplines that touted rational, sentiment-free thinking?

As Picard explained to Adam Higginbotham of Wired magazine, “I realized we’re not going to build intelligent machines until we build, if not something we call emotion, then something that functions like our emotion systems.”

Today, there is an international conference and a journal dedicated to affective computing, and labs around the world continue to further the field by finding applications for their “intelligent machines” to shape how we interact with technology every day.

What about those who supported computer science in the 1970s, back when computer science looked like a pile of hole-punched papers? Computer scientists once had to suade others of the viability of a field that would later become one of the most relevant and lucrative areas of study.

What about Gregor Mendel’s investigation with pea plants in 1866? Mendel’s contemporaries criticizing his work surely did not know that he would be credited for fathering the ever-evolving field of genetics.

What about Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine in 1798? No one believed that the ungodly idea of infecting someone to treat someone would save millions of lives.

Did those biased against the potential, the validity of these new fields and scientific pursuits, really understand their purposes and merits? With their closed interpretations of science, did they really understand what science is and can be? Over time, scientists have attempted to define science. Astronomer Carl Sagan asserted that “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” Physicist Stephen Hawking describes science as “not only a disciple of reason but, also, one of romance and passion.”

Although both eloquently stated their thoughts, I am convinced by the words of chemist Marie Curie –

“I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician; he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale. We should not allow it to be believed that all scientific progress can be reduced to mechanism, machines, gearings, even though such machinery also has its own beauty.”

I remember comparing my blue sled to my brother’s invisible submarine, and I hold onto my creation a little tighter. Maybe there is something more to science than my brother’s sophisticated machines. When my younger self stood in her room, surrounded by her Lego bricks, she shouldn’t have diminished the progress she had made in her Lego laboratory, just because she didn’t use pulleys or interlocking gears.

I shouldn’t have been so close-minded against my own science, just because the world around me was biased against my ideas. From my studies, I hypothesized, I tested, I built upon my past results. My world needed science, but it didn’t need what had already been done, or was already deemed acceptable. It needed my own input. Call my ideas biased, call them faulted. But without the individuals interpreting and solving their world’s struggles using their own definitions, science would cease to develop.

Scientists continue to stand in their laboratories in child-like wonder, enraptured by the phenomena that enchant them, in all shapes and forms. Science is about discovering what you find beautiful in your world, and working, playing, in order to fulfill your personal curiosity and the needs of your imagination.

Let’s sit down. Let’s open up those boxes filled with possibilities. Throw away the instructions.

Let’s play.

The Good and Bad of Bias and Prejudice in Science

By jonathan chan 3rd place winner, yale scientific magazine national essay competition 2014 milton academy milton, massachusetts.

Scientists take pride in using the scientific method that dictates testing a hypothesis dispassionately with objective experiments, scrutinizing that the results are replicable, presenting all the data for independent peer review, and addressing any dissenting views vigorously. Over the years, scientists have been very successful in creating the public myth that they love second guessing their own hypotheses to safeguard themselves from unintentional bias and prejudice. This rigorous process has enabled science to become exalted as an arbiter of truth by most people. In reality, however, scientists behave very differently and bias in scientific research is in fact quite common; a steadily growing number of published papers have been found to be not replicable, calling into question the validity of many widely accepted hypotheses.

Scientists are humans, with personal beliefs and values. It is human nature to look for evidence to support one’s beliefs. A fundamental flaw of human nature is its love for being proven right and hate for being proven wrong. This flaw causes scientists to unconsciously find data to confirm their preferred hypotheses or preconceptions, and they overlook – even disregard – evidence that is contrary. This phenomenon is known to psychologists as “confirmation bias”. A study of the efficacy of Chinese acupuncture is an interesting example of how cultural beliefs of scientists affect their research. Clinical experiments on acupuncture performed in Asia overwhelmingly support its therapeutic effectiveness, while trials implemented in the West show inconclusive results.

“Confirmation bias” can influence every step of any scientific experiment set up to test a hypothesis, from how the experiment is designed, to how the results are measured, to how the data are interpreted. Scientific research today is highly competitive and involves significant financial resources; a culture of publish or perish is pervasive. There is constant pressure on scientists to generate groundbreaking discoveries in drugs, materials, and technologies. The experimental methods are highly complex, and as a result, “positive results” are extremely difficult to produce, measure, and assess. No wonder many researchers become overly excited over the first piece of positive data, giving it biased prominence over the mundane, negative results and subsequently “shoe- horning” the flawed data that eventuate a faulty conclusion.

In theory, peer review by independent professionals and publications should provide an effective defense against these subtle biases. In practice, however, this process is just as prone to the same kind of confirmation biases which favors positive results over null data and negative hypotheses. A recent study on the selection process of scientific publications concludes that papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results. A prominent example of this institutional bias involves a high-profile study which linked child MMR vaccination with increased incidences of autism. This study caused widespread panic and resulted in a detrimental decade-long decrease in child immunization. Although numerous studies were conducted at the same time supporting a contrary conclusion, these “negative-result” papers failed to gain the level of attention of the “positive-result” paper the retraction of which took ten years.

History is replete with incidences where biases and prejudices have not only steered scientific research, but also fostered malicious prejudice of the research on an unsuspecting public. The prejudicial practice of eugenics in the early 1900’s caused thousands of innocent people to be labeled as inferior and unjustly persecuted for no scientific reason. Lysenkoism in the 1930’s in the Soviet Union advocated bias and useless “scientific” methods to increase crop yields for political purpose, resulting in the deaths of millions of starving peasants. On the other hand, bias has not always hindered scientific progress. Scientists in the past could not have known whether their brilliant ideas were right or wrong. Many of the problems they were trying to solve were not only difficult but also inductive due to a lack of evidence. These ideas necessarily originated as wild guesses encompassing the scientists’ individual biases and prevailing societal values.

Astrophysicist Mario Livio in his book “Brilliant Blunders” provides a litany of bias- induced scientific blunders which in time transformed into breakthrough scientific discoveries. Linus Pauling was a protein specialist and was likely to be biased in favor of proteins, which fueled his erroneous prediction of the DNA structure. Charles Darwin came out with the flawed theory of inheritance because he was likely influenced by the biases of the plant and animal breeders prevalent during his career. Lord Kelvin’s inordinate devotion to tidy mathematics and his bias against messiness resulted in his inaccurate calculation of earth’s age.

However, as these unconscious personal biases and societal prejudices are “uncovered” and properly understood, this development can actually facilitate the pursuit of true scientific knowledge. Bias and prejudice in science have caused unfortunate setbacks but at the same time have generated clarity for decisive shifts in thinking and accelerated advances. The scientific process is complex, messy, and at times even boring, full of starts and stops. Yet, this system of inquiry encompasses a self-correcting tendency which has withstood the test of time and remains a stunning success in understanding nature and improving lives. As influential German philosopher Hans-Gerog Gadamer writes: a researcher “cannot separate in advance the productive prejudices that enable understanding from the prejudices that hinder it”. Preconceptions can spur as well as blind in scientific research.

Unfortunately, scientific research today may have become overly zealous in guarding itself against biases and prejudices, succumbing to politically correct social forces and avoiding tackling sensitive problems and issues which may offend the prevailing public morality. Scientific research is increasingly constrained by these forces dictating what topics can be studied, how we study them, why we need to study them, and who gets to do the studying. A bigger crisis looms should science lose its relevance and importance due to excessive fear of unavoidable bias and prejudice in scientific research. As the Wright brothers said: “If a man is in too big a hurry to give up an error he is liable to give up some truth with it.”[/vc_column_text][vc_button2 title=”Go back” style=”square” color=”sky” size=”sm” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yalescientific.org%2Fsynapse%2Fcontest-winners%2F|title:Contest%20Winners|”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

THE NATION'S OLDEST COLLEGE SCIENCE PUBLICATION

Essay  COMPETITION

2024 global essay prize, the short list for the 2024 global essay prize was released on wednesday, 31 july..

The John Locke Institute encourages young people to cultivate the characteristics that turn good students into great writers: independent thought, depth of knowledge, clear reasoning, critical analysis and persuasive style. Our Essay Competition invites students to explore a wide range of challenging and interesting questions beyond the confines of the school curriculum.

Entering an essay in our competition can build knowledge, and refine skills of argumentation. It also gives students the chance to have their work assessed by experts. All of our essay prizes are judged by a panel of senior academics drawn from leading universities including Oxford and Princeton, under the leadership of the Chairman of Examiners, former Cambridge philosopher, Dr Jamie Whyte.

The judges will choose their favourite essay from each of seven subject categories - Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology and Law - and then select the winner of the Grand Prize for the best entry in any subject. There is also a separate prize awarded for the best essay in the junior category, for under 15s.

Q1. Do we have any good reasons to trust our moral intuition?

Q2. Do girls have a (moral) right to compete in sporting contests that exclude boys?

Q3. Should I be held responsible for what I believe?

Q1. Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Q2. Is peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip possible?

Q3. When is compliance complicity?

Q1. What is the optimal global population?  

Q2. Accurate news reporting is a public good. Does it follow that news agencies should be funded from taxation?

Q3. Do successful business people benefit others when making their money, when spending it, both, or neither?

Q1. Why was sustained economic growth so rare before the later 18th century and why did this change?

Q2. Has music ever significantly changed the course of history?

Q3. Why do civilisations collapse? Is our civilisation in danger?

Q1. When, if ever, should a company be permitted to refuse to do business with a person because of that person’s public statements?

Q2. In the last five years British police have arrested several thousand people for things they posted on social media. Is the UK becoming a police state?

Q3. Your parents say that 11pm is your bedtime. But they don’t punish you if you don’t go to bed by 11pm. Is 11pm really your bedtime?

Q1. According to a study by researchers at four British universities, for each 15-point increase in IQ, the likelihood of getting married increases by around 35% for a man but decreases by around 58% for a woman. Why?

In the original version of this question we misstated a statistic. This was caused by reproducing an error that appeared in several media summaries of the study. We are grateful to one of our contestants, Xinyi Zhang, who helped us to see (with humility and courtesy) why we should take more care to check our sources. We corrected the text on 4 April. Happily, the correction does not in any way alter the thrust of the question.

Q2. There is an unprecedented epidemic of depression and anxiety among young people. Can we fix this? How?

Q3. What is the difference between a psychiatric illness and a character flaw?

Q1. “I am not religious, but I am spiritual.” What could the speaker mean by “spiritual”?

Q2. Is it reasonable to thank God for protection from some natural harm if He is responsible for causing the harm?

Q3. Does God reward those who believe in him? If so, why?

JUNIOR prize

Q1. Does winning a free and fair election automatically confer a mandate for governing?

Q2. Has the anti-racism movement reduced racism?

Q3. Is there life after death?

Q4. How did it happen that governments came to own and run most high schools, while leaving food production to private enterprise? 

Q5. When will advancing technology make most of us unemployable? What should we do about this?

Q6. Should we trust fourteen-year-olds to make decisions about their own bodies? 

ENTRY REQUIREMENTS & FURTHER DETAILS

Please read the following carefully.

Entry to the John Locke Institute Essay Competition 2024 is open to students from any country.

Registration  

Only candidates who registered before the registration deadline of Friday, 31 May 2024 may enter this year's competition.

All entries must be submitted by 11.59 pm BST on  the submission deadline: Sunday, 30 June 2024 .  Candidates must be eighteen years old, or younger, on that date. (Candidates for the Junior Prize must be fourteen years old, or younger, on that date.)

Entry is free.

Each essay must address only one of the questions in your chosen subject category, and must not exceed 2000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, endnotes, bibliography or authorship declaration). 

The filename of your pdf must be in this format: FirstName-LastName-Category-QuestionNumber.pdf; so, for instance, Alexander Popham would submit his answer to question 2 in the Psychology category with the following file name:

Alexander-Popham-Psychology-2.pdf

Essays with filenames which are not in this format will be rejected.

The candidate's name should NOT appear within the document itself. 

Candidates should NOT add footnotes. They may, however, add endnotes and/or a Bibliography that is clearly titled as such.

Each candidate will be required to provide the email address of an academic referee who is familiar with the candidate's written academic work. This should be a school teacher, if possible, or another responsible adult who is not a relation of the candidate. The John Locke Institute will email referees to verify that the essays submitted are indeed the original work of the candidates.

Submissions may be made as soon as registration opens in April. We recommend that you submit your essay well in advance of the deadline to avoid any last-minute complications.  To submit your essay, click here .  

Acceptance of your essay depends on your granting us permission to use your data for the purposes of receiving and processing your entry as well as communicating with you about the Awards Ceremony Dinner, the academic conference, and other events and programmes of the John Locke Institute and its associated entities.  

Late entries

If for any reason you miss the 30 June deadline you will have an opportunity to make a late entry, under two conditions:

a) A late entry fee of 20.00 USD must be paid by credit card within twenty-four hours of the original deadline; and

b) Your essay must be submitted  before 11.59 pm BST on Wednesday, 10 July 2024.

To pay for late entry, a registrant need only log into his or her account, select the relevant option and provide the requested payment information.

Our grading system is proprietary. Essayists may be asked to discuss their entry with a member of the John Locke Institute’s faculty. We use various means to identify plagiarism, contract cheating, the use of AI and other forms of fraud . Our determinations in all such matters are final.

Essays will be judged on knowledge and understanding of the relevant material, the competent use of evidence, quality of argumentation, originality, structure, writing style and persuasive force. The very best essays are likely to be those which would be capable of changing somebody's mind. Essays which ignore or fail to address the strongest objections and counter-arguments are unlikely to be successful .

Candidates are advised to answer the question as precisely and directly as possible.

The writers of the best essays will receive a commendation and be shortlisted for a prize. Writers of shortlisted essays will be notified by 11.59 pm BST on Wednesday, 31 July. They will also be invited to London for an invitation-only academic conference and awards dinner in September, where the prize-winners will be announced. Unlike the competition itself, the academic conference and awards dinner are not free. Please be aware that n obody is required to attend either the academic conference or the prize ceremony. You can win a prize without travelling to London.

All short-listed candidates, including prize-winners, will be able to download eCertificates that acknowledge their achievement. If you win First, Second or Third Prize, and you travel to London for the ceremony, you will receive a signed certificate. 

There is a prize for the best essay in each category. The prize for each winner of a subject category, and the winner of the Junior category, is a scholarship worth US$2000 towards the cost of attending any John Locke Institute programme, and the essays will be published on the Institute's website. Prize-giving ceremonies will take place in London, at which winners and runners-up will be able to meet some of the judges and other faculty members of the John Locke Institute. Family, friends, and teachers are also welcome.

The candidate who submits the best essay overall will be awarded an honorary John Locke Institute Junior Fellowship, which comes with a US$10,000 scholarship to attend one or more of our summer schools and/or visiting scholars programmes. 

The judges' decisions are final, and no correspondence will be entered into.

R egistration opens: 1 April, 2024.

Registration deadline: 31 May, 2024. (Registration is required by this date for subsequent submission.)

Submission deadline: 30 June, 2024.

Late entry deadline: 10 July, 2024. (Late entries are subject to a 20.00 USD charge, payable by 1 July.)

Notification of short-listed essayists: 31 July, 2024.

Academic conference: 20 - 22 September, 2024.

Awards dinner: 21 September, 2024.

Any queries regarding the essay competition should be sent to [email protected] . Please be aware that, due to the large volume of correspondence we receive, we cannot guarantee to answer every query. In particular, regrettably, we are unable to respond to questions whose answers can be found on our website.

If you would like to receive helpful tips  from our examiners about what makes for a winning essay or reminders of upcoming key dates for the 2024  essay competition, please provide your email here to be added to our contact list. .

Thanks for subscribing!

The John Locke Institute's Global Essay Prize is acknowledged as the world's most prestigious essay competition. 

We welcome tens of thousands of submissions from ambitious students in more than 150 countries, and our examiners - including distinguished philosophers, political scientists, economists, historians, psychologists, theologians, and legal scholars - read and carefully assess every entry. 

I encourage you to register for this competition, not only for the hope of winning a prize or commendation, and not only for the chance to join the very best contestants at our academic conference and gala ceremony in London, but equally for the opportunity to engage in the serious scholarly enterprise of researching, reflecting on, writing about, and editing an answer to one of the important and provocative questions in this year's Global Essay Prize. 

We believe that the skills you will acquire in the process will make you a better thinker and a more effective advocate for the ideas that matter most to you.

I hope to see you in September!

Best wishes,

Jamie Whyte, Ph.D. (C ANTAB ) 

Chairman of Examiners

Q. I missed the registration deadline. May I still register or submit an essay?

A. No. Only candidates who registered before 31 May will be able to submit an essay. 

Q. Are footnote s, endnotes, a bibliography or references counted towards the word limit?

A. No. Only the body of the essay is counted. 

Q. Are in-text citations counted towards the word limit? ​

A. If you are using an in-text based referencing format, such as APA, your in-text citations are included in the word limit.

Q. Is it necessary to include foo tnotes or endnotes in an essay? ​

A. You  may not  include footnotes, but you may include in-text citations or endnotes. You should give your sources of any factual claims you make, and you should ackn owledge any other authors on whom you rely.​

Q. I am interested in a question that seems ambiguous. How should I interpret it?

A. You may interpret a question as you deem appropriate, clarifying your interpretation if necessary. Having done so, you must answer the question as directly as possible.

Q. How strict are  the age eligibility criteria?

A. Only students whose nineteenth birthday falls after 30 June 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation. In the case of the Junior category, only students whose fifteenth birthday falls after 30 June 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation. 

Q. May I submit more than one essay?

A. Yes, you may submit as many essays as you please in any or all categories.

Q. If I am eligible to compete in the Junior category, may I also (or instead) compete in another category?

A. Yes, you may.

Q. May I team up with someone else to write an essay?  

A. No. Each submitted essay must be entirely the work of a single individual.

Q. May I use AI, such as ChatGPT or the like, in writing my essay?

A. All essays will be checked for the use of AI. If we find that any content is generated by AI, your essay will be disqualified. We will also ask you, upon submission of your essay, whether you used AI for  any  purpose related to the writing of your essay, and if so, you will be required to provide details. In that case, if, in our judgement, you have not provided full and accurate details of your use of AI, your essay will be disqualified. 

Since any use of AI (that does not result in disqualification) can only negatively affect our assessment of your work relative to that of work that is done without using AI, your safest course of action is simply not to use it at all. If, however, you choose to use it for any purpose, we reserve the right to make relevant judgements on a case-by-case basis and we will not enter into any correspondence. 

Q. May I have someone else edit, or otherwise help me with, my essay?

A. You may of course discuss your essay with others, and it is perfectly acceptable for them to offer general advice and point out errors or weaknesses in your writing or content, leaving you to address them.

However, no part of your essay may be written by anyone else. This means that you must edit your own work and that while a proofreader may point out errors, you as the essayist must be the one to correct them. 

Q. Do I have to attend the awards ceremony to win a prize? ​

A. Nobody is required to attend the prize ceremony. You can win a prize without travelling to London. But if we invite you to London it is because your essay was good enough - in the opinion of the First Round judges - to be at least a contender for First, Second or Third Prize. Normally the Second Round judges will agree that the short-listed essays are worth at least a commendation.

Q. Is there an entry fee?

A. No. There is no charge to enter our global essay competition unless you submit your essay after the normal deadline, in which case there is a fee of 20.00 USD .

Q. Can I receive a certificate for my participation in your essay competition if I wasn't shortlisted? 

A. No. Certificates are awarded only for shortlisted essays. Short-listed contestants who attend the award ceremony in London will receive a paper certificate. If you cannot travel to London, you will be able to download your eCertificate.

Q. Can I receive feedba ck on my essay? 

A. We would love to be able to give individual feedback on essays but, unfortunately, we receive too many entries to be able to comment on particular essays.

Q. The deadline for publishing the names of short-listed essayists has passed but I did not receive an email to tell me whether I was short-listed.

A. Log into your account and check "Shortlist Status" for (each of) your essay(s).

Q. Why isn't the awards ceremony in Oxford this year?

A. Last year, many shortlisted finalists who applied to join our invitation-only academic conference missed the opportunity because of capacity constraints at Oxford's largest venues. This year, the conference will be held in central London and the gala awards dinner will take place in an iconic London ballroom. 

TECHNICAL FAQ s

Q. The system will not accept my essay. I have checked the filename and it has the correct format. What should I do?  

A. You have almost certainly added a space before or after one of your names in your profile. Edit it accordingly and try to submit again.

Q. The profile page shows my birth date to be wrong by a day, even after I edit it. What should I do?

A. Ignore it. The date that you typed has been correctly input to our database. ​ ​

Q. How can I be sure that my registration for the essay competition was successful? Will I receive a confirmation email?

A. You will not receive a confirmation email. Rather, you can at any time log in to the account that you created and see that your registration details are present and correct.

TROUBLESHOOTING YOUR SUBMISSION

If you are unable to submit your essay to the John Locke Institute’s global essay competition, your problem is almost certainly one of the following.

If so, please proceed as indicated.

1) PROBLEM: I receive the ‘registrations are now closed’ message when I enter my email and verification code. SOLUTION. You did not register for the essay competition and create your account. If you think you did, you probably only provided us with your email to receive updates from us about the competition or otherwise. You may not enter the competition this year.

2) PROBLEM I do not receive a login code after I enter my email to enter my account. SOLUTION. Enter your email address again, checking that you do so correctly. If this fails, restart your browser using an incognito window; clear your cache, and try again. Wait for a few minutes for the code. If this still fails, restart your machine and try one more time. If this still fails, send an email to [email protected] with “No verification code – [your name]” in the subject line.

SUBMITTING AN ESSAY

3) PROBLEM: The filename of my essay is in the correct format but it is rejected. SOLUTION: Use “Edit Profile” to check that you did not add a space before or after either of your names. If you did, delete it. Whether you did or did not, try again to submit your essay. If submission fails again, email [email protected] with “Filename format – [your name]” in the subject line.

4) PROBLEM: When trying to view my submitted essay, a .txt file is downloaded – not the .pdf file that I submitted. SOLUTION: Delete the essay. Logout of your account; log back in, and resubmit. If resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “File extension problem – [your name]” in the subject line.

5) PROBLEM: When I try to submit, the submission form just reloads without giving me an error message. SOLUTION. Log out of your account. Open a new browser; clear the cache; log back in, and resubmit. If resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “Submission form problem – [your name]” in the subject line.

6) PROBLEM: I receive an “Unexpected Error” when trying to submit. SOLUTION. Logout of your account; log back in, and resubmit. If this resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “Unexpected error – [your name]” in thesubject line. Your email must tell us e xactly where in the submission process you received this error.

7) PROBLEM: I have a problem with submitting and it is not addressed above on this list. SOLUTION: Restart your machine. Clear your browser’s cache. Try to submit again. If this fails, email [email protected] with “Unlisted problem – [your name]” in the subject line. Your email must tell us exactly the nature of your problem with relevant screen caps.

READ THIS BEFORE YOU EMAIL US.

Do not email us before you have tried the specified solutions to your problem.

Do not email us more than once about a single problem. We will respond to your email within 72 hours. Only if you have not heard from us in that time may you contact us again to ask for an update.

If you email us regarding a problem, you must include relevant screen-shots and information on both your operating system and your browser. You must also declare that you have tried the solutions presented above and had a good connection to the internet when you did so.

If you have tried the relevant solution to your problem outlined above, have emailed us, and are still unable to submit before the 30 June deadline on account of any fault of the John Locke Institute or our systems, please do not worry: we will have a way to accept your essay in that case. However, if there is no fault on our side, we will not accept your essay if it is not submitted on time – whatever your reason: we will not make exceptions for IT issues for which we are not responsible.

We reserve the right to disqualify the entries of essayists who do not follow all provided instructions, including those concerning technical matters.

Enquiries: [email protected]

Dundee: 01382 221 221

Dedicated to the advancement of research in all branches of cell biology.

Science Writing Prize

Communicating science in words that are engaging and understandable is vital at many levels. The BSCB Science Writing Prize was launched in 2009 to encourage and reward high quality writing on topics of key relevance to cell biology. Entrants have either communicated their own research projects or science stories in the literature, in a clear and concise way aimed at a non-specialist audience, or written essays that were not be limited to research  per se,  but tackled a bioethical or science policy issue. The BSCB Science Writing Prize aims to encourage writing skill development in young researchers rather than seasoned veterans ( see rules below ).

The competition entry deadline is usually in February/March and will be posted in our news section on the homepage of the website and communicated to members by email.

The deadline for entries this year (2024) is March 31st.  Prize winners will be announced at the joint BSCB/Biochemical Society Cell Migration meeting in April 2024.

The winner of the 2023 competition is Aleksandra Pluta from University of Oxford

You can read the winning entry here.

General Rules: The winner receives  a prize of £500  and has their winning entry  published in the BSCB magazine and online  (both on the BSCB website and subject to editorial acceptance on the excellent  www.lablit.com  website). Normally the prize is presented before one of the main plenary talks at the annual BSCB Spring Conference.

Each year shortlisted entries are judged by an external expert. In previous years we have enlisted the kind help of Tim Radford (Writer and former Science Editor at The Guardian), Viv Parry (Science Writer and Columnist), Tania Hershman (Science writer, former science journalist and writer-in-residence at Bristol University), Dr. Jenny Rohn (a cell biologist at UCL, who is also a science writer, novelist, blogger, broadcaster, the editor of  LabLit.com  and the founder and chair of Science is Vital) and Barbara Melville (science writer, former writer-in-residence at the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and board member with the Association of British Science Writers).

Remember: You must be a BSCB member to enter. The full rules and how to enter can be found  here.

Previous Winners

Bscb science writing prize 2020.

One for all, all for one, or – what does it take to be multicellular? When people think of biology, ‘big’ often comes to mind: elephants, whales, redwoods. A closer look, though, reveals that the vast majority of organisms are in fact unicellular: think bacteria, archaea, and countless algae and fungi. But what does it […]

Read more...

• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2019
• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2018
• BSCB Writing Prize 2017
• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2016
• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2015
• Science Writing Prize 2015
• Science Writing Prize 2014
• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2013
• BSCB Science Writing Prize 2012

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 22 May 2019

Enter Nature ’s essay competition

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Illustration by Jan Kallwejt

This year, Nature turns 150 years old. To mark this occasion, we are celebrating our past but also looking to the future.

We would like to hear from you. Nature is launching an essay competition for readers aged 18 to 25. We invite you to tell us, in an essay of no more than 1,000 words, what scientific advance, big or small, you would most like to see in your lifetime, and why it matters to you. We want to feature the inspiring voices and ideas of the next generation.

The deadline for completed essays is midnight, UK time, on 9 August 2019. The winner will have their essay published in our 150th anniversary issue on 7 November, and receive a cash prize (£500 or equivalent) as well as a year’s personal subscription to the journal.

We are looking for essays that are well reasoned, well researched, forward-looking, supported by existing science, and leave room for personal perspective and anecdotes that show us who you are. We encourage you to entertain as well as to inform; we are not looking for academic papers, an academic writing style or science fiction. Submitted essays will be judged by a panel of editors, including Nature’ s editor-in-chief Magdalena Skipper, physicist Jess Wade at Imperial College London, and immunologist Faith Osier from the KEMRI–Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.

E-mail any questions to [email protected]. We look forward to reading your imaginative and thought-provoking essays.

Further information and how to submit

Once you’re ready to submit your essay, please do so here .

Over the next few weeks, Nature will send out a series of e-mails containing tips on essay writing. Sign up below:

Before entering, please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Nature 569 , 455 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01562-3

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Communication

How to win funding to talk about your science

Career Feature 15 AUG 24

‘All things that wander in the heavens’: how I swapped my ivory tower for the world of science fiction

Career Q&A 04 JUL 24

How researchers and their managers can build an actionable career-development plan

Career Column 17 JUN 24

Friends or foes? An academic job search risked damaging our friendship

Career Column 14 AUG 24

‘Who will protect us from seeing the world’s largest rainforest burn?’ The mental exhaustion faced by climate scientists

Career Feature 12 AUG 24

Postdoctoral Fellow in Epigenetics/RNA Biology in the Lab of Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf

Van Andel Institute’s (VAI) Professor Yvonne Fondufe-Mittendorf, Ph.D. is hiring a Postdoctoral Fellow to join the lab and carry out an independent...

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Van Andel Institute

Faculty Positions in Center of Bioelectronic Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

SLS invites applications for multiple tenure-track/tenured faculty positions at all academic ranks.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

School of Life Sciences, Westlake University

Faculty Positions, Aging and Neurodegeneration, Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine

Applicants with expertise in aging and neurodegeneration and related areas are particularly encouraged to apply.

Westlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine (WLLSB)

Faculty Positions in Chemical Biology, Westlake University

We are seeking outstanding scientists to lead vigorous independent research programs focusing on all aspects of chemical biology including...

Assistant Professor Position in Genomics

The Lewis-Sigler Institute at Princeton University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Genomics.

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, US

The Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics at Princeton University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Looking to publish? Meet your dream editor, designer and marketer on Reedsy.

Find the perfect editor for your next book

1 million authors trust the professionals on Reedsy. Come meet them.

Best Science Writing Writing Contests in 2024

Showing 17 contests that match your search.

Elegant Literature's Monthly Award For New Writers

Elegant Literature

Genres: Crime, Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Mystery, Romance, Science Fiction, Short Story, Thriller, Young Adult, Flash Fiction, and Science Writing

One of the largest awards open to unpublished writers and closed to professionals. We are the first magazine to pay pro rates and only accept submissions from new writers, putting over $150k into the hands of emerging talent around the globe so far. One new writer receives the grand prize. We also choose the best stories, pay the authors professional rates, and publish them in our magazine. June's theme is Secret Societies.

Additional prizes:

10x Paid publication, 25 x $20 USD | Free entry to Novelist Accelerator

💰 Entry fee: $10

📅 Deadline: July 01, 2024 (Expired)

The Times/Chicken House Children's Fiction Competition

Chicken House Books

Genres: Fiction, Novel, Novella, Science Fiction, Science Writing, and Young Adult

We're looking for original ideas, a fresh voice, a diverse range of entries and stories that children will love! To enter, you must have written a full-length novel suitable for children/young adults aged between 7 and 18 years. We suggest a minimum of 30,000 words and ask that manuscripts do not exceed 80,000 words. The IET 150 Award will be awarded to a manuscript that celebrates Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths.

A worldwide publishing contract with Chicken House & royalty advance of £10,000

An offer of representation from a top literary agent

💰 Entry fee: $25

📅 Deadline: June 01, 2024 (Expired)

The Letter Review Prize for Unpublished Books

The Letter Review

Genres: Crime, Essay, Fantasy, Fiction, Flash Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Novel, Novella, Poetry, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Short Story, Thriller, and Young Adult

Free to enter. Seeking 0-5000 word (poetry: 15 pgs) excerpts of unpublished books (Fiction, Poetry, Nonfiction), including most self-published and indie-published works. 2-4 Winners (publication of extract is optional). We Shortlist 10-20 writers. Open to writers from anywhere in the world, with no theme or genre restrictions. Judged blind.

Optional Publication of Excerpt, Letter of Recommendation

📅 Deadline: May 01, 2024 (Expired)

Craft your masterpiece in Reedsy Studio

Plan, write, edit, and format your book in our free app made for authors.

Learn more about Reedsy Studio .

The Book of the Year Awards

The Independent Author Network

Genres: Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Novel, Novella, Poetry, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Thriller, Young Adult, Crime, and Short Story

The Independent Author Network presents the 10th Annual IAN Book of the Year Awards, an international contest open to all authors with 55 fiction and non-fiction categories. Winners are eligible to receive a share of cash prizes of $6,000 USD. Open to all English language print and eBooks available for sale, including small presses, mid-size independent publishers, university presses, and self-published authors.

$6,000.00 USD in total cash prizes

💰 Entry fee: $49

📅 Deadline: August 16, 2024 (Expired)

The Letter Review Prize for Nonfiction

Genres: Essay, Memoir, Non-fiction, Crime, Humor, and Science Writing

2-4 Winners are published. We Shortlist 10-20 writers. Seeking Nonfiction 0-5000 words. Judges’ feedback available. Open to writers from anywhere in the world, with no theme or genre restrictions. Judged blind. All entries considered for publication + submission to Pushcart.

Publication by The Letter Review

💰 Entry fee: $2

Brink Literary Journal Award for Hybrid Writing

Genres: Essay, Fantasy, Fiction, Humor, Memoir, Non-fiction, Poetry, Science Writing, and Short Story

The Brink Literary Journal Award for Hybrid Writing will be administered to the winner of a literary contest designed to champion innovative hybrid and cross-genre work.

Publication

💰 Entry fee: $22

📅 Deadline: February 16, 2024 (Expired)

Future Scholar Foundation Short Story Competition

Future Scholar Foundation

Genres: Fantasy, Fiction, Flash Fiction, Humor, Mystery, Science Fiction, Science Writing, and Short Story

The Future Scholar Foundation's (FSF) monthly short story competitions are designed to enhance students' communication skills and foster impactful self-expression in their daily lives. The FSF's competitons have reached over 1,500 students in over 8 US states and were featured in The Seattle Times and Northwest Asian Weekly. Participate now for the chance to earn prizes up to $25 and publication on the Future Scholar Foundation's website!

$25 Amazon gift card

Publication on website

📅 Deadline: May 28, 2024 (Expired)

The Letter Review Prize for Books

Genres: Crime, Essay, Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Novella, Poetry, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Short Story, Thriller, and Young Adult

The Letter Review Prize for Books is open to writers from anywhere in the world. Seeking most unpublished (we accept some self/indie published) novels, novellas, story collections, nonfiction, poetry etc. 20 entries are longlisted.

$1000 USD shared by 3 winners

📅 Deadline: April 30, 2024 (Expired)

Summer Nanofiction Battle

Writing Battle

Genres: Crime, Fantasy, Fiction, Flash Fiction, Horror, Humor, Mystery, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Short Story, Thriller, and Young Adult

Two days to write a 250 word short story. The peer-powered quarterly writing contest where every story receives oodles of feedback. Write one. Read ten. Win thousands.

Genre Winner (x4): $1,500

Genre Runner-up (x4): $375 | Feedback by industry professionals

💰 Entry fee: $20

📅 Deadline: August 02, 2024 (Expired)

Reader Views Literary Awards

Reader Views

Genres: Crime, Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Non-fiction, Novel, Novella, Poetry, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Short Story, Thriller, and Young Adult

The Reader Views Literary Awards program helps level the playing field for self-published authors, recognizing the most creative and exciting new books in the industry. Our awards program is recognized industry-wide as one of the top literary awards programs for independent authors.

Several marketing prizes (e.g. book review)

💰 Entry fee: $89

📅 Deadline: December 15, 2024

Artificial Intelligence Competition

New Beginnings

Genres: Essay, Non-fiction, Science Fiction, Science Writing, and Short Story

There is no topic relating to technology that brings more discussion than artificial intelligence. Some people think it does wonders. Others see it as trouble. Let us know your opinion about AI in this competition. Include experiences you have had with AI. 300-word limit. Winners will be selected January 1, 2024. Open to anyone, anywhere.

💰 Entry fee: $5

📅 Deadline: December 15, 2023 (Expired)

100 Word Writing Contest

Tadpole Press

Genres: Essay, Fantasy, Fiction, Flash Fiction, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Thriller, Young Adult, Children's, Poetry, Romance, Short Story, Suspense, and Travel

Can you write a story using 100 words or less? Pieces will be judged on creativity, uniqueness, and how the story captures a new angle, breaks through stereotypes, and expands our beliefs about what's possible or unexpectedly delights us. In addition, we are looking for writing that is clever or unique, inspires us, and crafts a compelling and complete story. The first-place prize has doubled to $2,000 USD.

2nd: writing coach package

💰 Entry fee: $15

📅 Deadline: November 30, 2024

Not Quite Write Prize for Flash Fiction

Not Quite Write

Genres: Crime, Fantasy, Fiction, Flash Fiction, Horror, Humor, Mystery, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Thriller, and Young Adult

The Not Quite Write Prize for Flash Fiction challenges writers to create an original piece of flash fiction based on two typical writing prompts plus one ""anti-prompt"". An anti-prompt is a challenge to break a specific “rule” of writing while telling a great story. Participants compete for AU$2,000 in cash prizes, including AU$1,000 for the winner, cash prizes for the entire shortlist and two bonus ‘wildcard’ prizes. Winners are read aloud on the Not Quite Write podcast, where the judges share in-depth analysis about the entries and offer free writing advice. The Not Quite Write Prize for Flash Fiction is hosted in Australia and open to all writers of any age and level of ability around the world.

Publication on the Not Quite Write website and podcast

💰 Entry fee: $16

📅 Deadline: July 21, 2024 (Expired)

Storytrade Book Awards

Genres: Crime, Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Novel, Poetry, Romance, Science Fiction, Science Writing, Script Writing, Short Story, Thriller, and Young Adult

The Storytrade Book Awards recognizes excellence in small and independent publishing. Open to all indie authors and publishers including self-published authors, university presses, and small or independent presses, our annual awards program spotlights outstanding books in a number of fiction and nonfiction categories.

Medal, Book Stickers, Digital Seal

💰 Entry fee: $75

📅 Deadline: June 30, 2024 (Expired)

Science Fiction Writing Contest

FanStory.com Inc

Genres: Fiction, Science Writing, and Science Fiction

Share a Science Fiction themed story to enter this writing contest with a cash prizes. Let your imagination fly and enjoy sharing your writing.

Winning entries will be features on the FanStory.com welcome page.

💰 Entry fee: $9

📅 Deadline: April 12, 2023 (Expired)

Work-In-Progress (WIP) Contest

Unleash Press

Genres: Crime, Essay, Fantasy, Fiction, Horror, Humor, Memoir, Mystery, Non-fiction, Novel, Novella, Poetry, Science Fiction, Science Writing, and Young Adult

We aim to assist writers in the completion of an important literary project and vision. The Unleash WIP Award offers writers support in the amount of $500 to supplement costs to aid in the completion of a book-length work of fiction, nonfiction, or poetry. Writers will also receive editorial feedback, coaching meetings, and an excerpt/interview feature in Unleash Lit.

Coaching, interview, and editorial support

💰 Entry fee: $35

📅 Deadline: July 15, 2024 (Expired)

Universe of Threats Natural Disaster Writing Contest

Genres: Fiction, Science Fiction, Science Writing, and Short Story

CAPTRS is building a catalog of threats, called the “Universe of Threats,” which will be used to prepare decision makers for future threats. We invite you to submit a 2,500 word or less story describing a threat scenario related to natural disasters, including floods, wildfires, hurricanes or another natural disaster of your choosing.

2nd: $2,500 | 3rd: $1,000 | Publication on CAPTRS website

📅 Deadline: January 31, 2024 (Expired)

Discover the finest writing contests of 2024 for fiction and non-fiction authors — including short story competitions, essay writing competitions, poetry contests, and many more. Updated weekly, these contests are vetted by Reedsy to weed out the scammers and time-wasters. If you’re looking to stick to free writing contests, simply use our filters as you browse.

Why you should submit to writing contests

Submitting to poetry competitions and free writing contests in 2024 is absolutely worth your while as an aspiring author: just as your qualifications matter when you apply for a new job, a writing portfolio that boasts published works and award-winning pieces is a great way to give your writing career a boost. And not to mention the bonus of cash prizes!

That being said, we understand that taking part in writing contests can be tough for emerging writers. First, there’s the same affliction all writers face: lack of time or inspiration. Entering writing contests is a time commitment, and many people decide to forego this endeavor in order to work on their larger projects instead — like a full-length book. Second, for many writers, the chance of rejection is enough to steer them clear of writing contests. 

But we’re here to tell you that two of the great benefits of entering writing contests happen to be the same as those two reasons to avoid them.

When it comes to the time commitment: yes, you will need to expend time and effort in order to submit a quality piece of writing to competitions. That being said, having a hard deadline to meet is a great motivator for developing a solid writing routine.

Think of entering contests as a training session to become a writer who will need to meet deadlines in order to have a successful career. If there’s a contest you have your eye on, and the deadline is in one month, sit down and realistically plan how many words you’ll need to write per day in order to meet that due date — and don’t forget to also factor in the time you’ll need to edit your story!

For tips on setting up a realistic writing plan, check out this free, ten-day course : How to Build a Rock-Solid Writing Routine.

In regards to the fear of rejection, the truth is that any writer aspiring to become a published author needs to develop relatively thick skin. If one of your goals is to have a book traditionally published, you will absolutely need to learn how to deal with rejection, as traditional book deals are notoriously hard to score. If you’re an indie author, you will need to adopt the hardy determination required to slowly build up a readership.

The good news is that there’s a fairly simple trick for learning to deal with rejection: use it as a chance to explore how you might be able to improve your writing.

In an ideal world, each rejection from a publisher or contest would come with a detailed letter, offering construction feedback and pointing out specific tips for improvement. And while this is sometimes the case, it’s the exception and not the rule.

Still, you can use the writing contests you don’t win as a chance to provide yourself with this feedback. Take a look at the winning and shortlisted stories and highlight their strong suits: do they have fully realized characters, a knack for showing instead of telling, a well-developed but subtly conveyed theme, a particularly satisfying denouement?

The idea isn’t to replicate what makes those stories tick in your own writing. But most examples of excellent writing share a number of basic craft principles. Try and see if there are ways for you to translate those stories’ strong points into your own unique writing.

Finally, there are the more obvious benefits of entering writing contests: prize and publication. Not to mention the potential to build up your readership, connect with editors, and gain exposure.

Resources to help you win writing competitions in 2024

Every writing contest has its own set of submission rules. Whether those rules are dense or sparing, ensure that you follow them to a T. Disregarding the guidelines will not sway the judges’ opinion in your favor — and might disqualify you from the contest altogether. 

Aside from ensuring you follow the rules, here are a few resources that will help you perfect your submissions.

Free online courses

On Writing:

• "How to Craft a Killer Short Story" ( Click here )
• "The Non-Sexy Business of Writing Non-Fiction" ( Click here )
• "How to Write a Novel" ( Click here )
• "Understanding Point of View" ( Click here )
• "Developing Characters That Your Readers Will Love" ( Click here )
• "Writing Dialogue That Develops Plot and Character" ( Click here )
• "Stop Procrastinating! Build a Solid Writing Routine" ( Click here )

On Editing:

• "Story Editing for Authors" ( Click here )
• "How to Self-Edit Your Manuscript Like a Pro" ( Click here )
• "Novel Revision: Practical Tips for Rewrites" ( Click here )
• "How to Write a Novel: Steps From a Bestselling Writer" ( Click here )
• "How to Write a Short Story in 9 Simple Steps" ( Click here )
• "100 Literary Devices With Examples: The Ultimate List" ( Click here )
• "20 Writing Tips to Improve Your Craft" ( Click here )
• "How to Write Fabulous Dialogue [9 Tips + Examples]" ( Click here )
• "8 Character Development Exercises to Write 3D Characters" ( Click here )

Bonus resources

• 200+ Short Story Ideas ( Click here )
• 600+ Writing Prompts to Inspire You ( Click here )
• 100+ Creative Writing Exercises for Fiction Authors ( Click here )
• Story Title Generator ( Click here )
• Pen Name Generator ( Click here )
• Character Name Generator ( Click here )

After you submit to a writing competition in 2024

It’s exciting to send a piece of writing off to a contest. However, once the initial excitement wears off, you may be left waiting for a while. Some writing contests will contact all entrants after the judging period — whether or not they’ve won. Other writing competitions will only contact the winners. 

Here are a few things to keep in mind after you submit:

Many writing competitions don’t have time to respond to each entrant with feedback on their story. However, it never hurts to ask! Feel free to politely reach out requesting feedback — but wait until after the selection period is over.

If you’ve submitted the same work to more than one writing competition or literary magazine, remember to withdraw your submission if it ends up winning elsewhere.

After you send a submission, don’t follow it up with a rewritten or revised version. Instead, ensure that your first version is thoroughly proofread and edited. If not, wait until the next edition of the contest or submit the revised version to other writing contests.

Join a community of over 1 million authors

Reedsy is more than just a blog. Become a member today to discover how we can help you publish a beautiful book.

Save your shortlist

Enter your email address to save your shortlist so that you don't lose it!

By continuing, you will also receive Reedsy's weekly publishing tips and access to our free webinars.

We sent over your shortlist. Thank you for using Reedsy's Writing Contest Directory, happy publishing! 🙌

Join our weekly contest

Get 5 new writing prompts every Friday. Write and submit a story for a chance to win $250.

1 million authors trust the professionals on Reedsy. Come meet them.

Enter your email or get started with a social account:

May 30, 1896

Our Prize Essay Competition

Louisiana Society of Radiologic Technologists

SCIENTIFIC ESSAY COMPETITION

Lsrt scientific essay.

Scientific Essay Rules and Regulations  LSRT-COMPETITIVE-ESSAY-RULES

Scientific Essay Scoring Rubric  

2024 Scientific Essay Application

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• CNS Injury and Stroke
• Epilepsy and Sleep
• Movement Disorders
• Multiple Sclerosis/Neuroinflammation
• Neuro-oncology
• Neurodegeneration - Cellular & Molecular
• Neuromuscular Disease
• Neuropsychiatry
• Pain and Headache
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Why publish with this journal?
• Open Access
• About Brain
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Brain 2023 essay competition.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Masud Husain, Brain 2023 essay competition, Brain , Volume 146, Issue 7, July 2023, Page 2657, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad160

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The response to our inaugural essay competition last year was remarkable. The impressive quality of submissions and diversity of subjects considered by the authors—who included researchers, clinicians, patients, carers, as well as people who have no immediate link to neurology—was extraordinary. The thoughtful and sometimes moving nature of those essays have encouraged us to launch a new competition this year.

We seek writing that stimulates, provokes and makes our readers reflect. We emphasize that essays for Brain are NOT scientific articles. Nor are they academic pieces, but rather writing that provides a broader perspective on life for the general reader. Essays do NOT have to focus on neurological topics or the brain but they should make our readers reflect. They can be opinionated, entertaining or amusing, but most importantly, they should be enlightening, illuminating some aspect of the human condition, and written well.

The best submissions will be published in our Essay section, highlighted on Brain’s website and social media, and made freely available to all readers. Last year’s winning essay was published in the January 2023 issue of Brain, while the two runners-up had their submissions published in February and March of the journal.

What are we looking for in an essay? Aldous Huxley famously began the Preface to his Collected Essays (1960) with: ‘What is true of the novel is only a little less true for the essay. For, like the novel, the essay is a literary device for saying almost everything about almost anything’. According to Huxley, essays often focus either on the personal or autobiographical; or the objective or factual; or the abstract and universal. ‘Most essayists are at home and at their best in the neighbourhood of only one.’ However, he concluded: ‘The most richly satisfying essays are those which make the best not of one, not of two, but of all the three worlds in which it is possible for the essay to exist. Freely, effortlessly, thought and feeling move … from the personal to the universal, from the abstract back to the concrete, from the objective datum to the inner experience’.

We want an essay to be a coherent, carefully crafted piece of writing that aspires to achieve all these elements, providing an absorbing experience that stays with our readers long after they have enjoyed the text.

If you’re interested to submit an essay, or know someone who does, please read the following carefully :

This competition is open to anyone who would like to write an essay.

Essays have a limit of 2000 words. Please provide a word count at the end of the text.

Essays do not have an abstract but must have an introductory paragraph (∼100 words) to set the scene or summarize the contents for the reader.

Ideally, they don’t have subheadings but could have breaks within the text to divide up sections.

To reiterate, Essays are NOT scientific articles or academic texts. They do not have to cover neurological topics. They are supposed to stimulate, provoke and make our readers reflect.

If necessary, you can add up to 10 references, but Essays don’t have to have any references.

Please consider adding up to two images, ideally without copyright, to accompany your text.

Submit your text to the Brain pre-submission email address: [email protected]

Please DO NOT put your name, affiliation or any other information that can identify you anywhere on the text. Submissions will be judged by a panel that is blind to who you are or where you come from.

Only one submission per author is allowed.

All the information you need is provided here—if you read the text carefully. Please don’t send in further questions about the competition.

Deadline for submission: 15 October 2023.

We’re very much looking forward to reading your essays.

Email alerts

Citing articles via, looking for your next opportunity.

• Contact the editorial office
• Guarantors of Brain
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2156
• Print ISSN 0006-8950
• Copyright © 2024 Guarantors of Brain
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.