And the Intel Science Talent Search winners are...

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 10, 2009)—Eric Larson, 17, of Eugene, Ore., took home the top prize at this year's Intel Science Talent Search here—a $100,000 scholarship—for "classifying mathematical objects called fusion categories." His work, according to Intel, "describes these in certain dimensions for the first time."

Here, we will attempt to explain what that means. (We expect readers sharper than we are to do a better job, so please comment away.) Fusion categories are a discipline of group theory. Basically, a group is a collection of actions that is self contained. Rubik's Cube is a good example of group theory: You can do twist a, then twist b, and the result will always be contained in the set of allowed moves.

Larson took second place in December in the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology, and he's published on the subject in arxiv. Here's what Siemens had to say about his project last year:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


These extremely complex structures are a far-reaching generalization of groups, which are the algebraic structure traditionally used in mathematics to model symmetries. The main result of this project identifies and completely classifies a new class of fusion categories which, for the first time, contains non group-theoretic examples.

Larson was joined in the winner's circle by William Sun, 17, of Chesterfield, Mo., who took second place and will get $75,000, for a biochemistry project "that studied the effects of a recently discovered molecule that could potentially help efforts to treat bacterial infections or prevent neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease," according to Intel. Third place and $50,000 went to Philip Streich, 18, of Platteville, Wis., whose project focused on carbon nanotubes. (We highlighted his work here.)

Former secretary of state Gen. Colin Powell told the finalists he had read all of their bios, "and that's some scary stuff." He praised public education, noting that despite graduating from City College in New York with just above a 2.0 grade point average, there were now college buildings named after him. Andy Grove, the third person to join Intel, earned a City College degree in chemistry, while Powell earned his in geology. Geology, Powell said, somehow turned into digging foxholes, while chemistry turned into making silicon chips.

Nobelist and current secretary of energy Steven Chu urged the students to use science to solve humanity's pressing issues, citing global warming. "All the great discoveries have not been discovered," Chu said. "It's a wonderful profession to be in." He pulled an example from physics: "All we know about dark matter is that it behaves like matter but we don't know what it is. Dark energy is even worse."

The gala dinner capped a hectic fun-filled week for the 40 finalists, who stayed in the St. Regis Hotel, toured the nation's capital and even met President Obama in the White House. Not to mention they had asteroids named after them.

These kids are wonderful examples of "what the United States has to replicate many thousands of times over with our young people if we want to be successful," Intel CEO Craig Barrett said of the finalists at the gala dinner honoring them tonight.

"This is why we can be hopeful for our collective future," said Elizabeth Marincola, president of the Society for Science and the Public, which organize the awards.

See our in-depth report for all of our Intel STS coverage.

Photo of Steven Chu by Laura Vanderkam/copyright Scientific American

Ivan Oransky is editor in chief of Spectrum and a distinguished writer in residence at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. He is a co-founder of Retraction Watch and a volunteer member of the board of directors of the PubPeer Foundation.

More by Ivan Oransky

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe