Talk:Jack Andraka

Order of sentences seems very messy
I noticed that specific sentences seem out of order or otherwise in the wrong place.

For example(quoting the article):


 * Pancreatic cancer has a five-year survival rate of 5.5%. One reason for this is the lack of a rapid, sensitive, inexpensive screening method.[3]
 * Andraka won the award as a 15 year-old high school freshman at North County High School in Glen Burnie Maryland, United States.

I think it would be a good idea to give this article a minor rewrite. 83.83.21.167 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is "background" from his abstract that did not belong in the "method" section; "devastating" was also his term. Integrate it better?98.111.146.179 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * done 68.238.249.142 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

clarification needed about "electrical potential"
The term "potential" is apparently an error in his abstract, as nothing else suggests an electrochemical approach or anything that can generate a potential. He very well may have measured a voltage, but only after a current was applied, the unknown being a resistance or conductance. Until the patent application or other papers are published, probably no way to correct unless someone asks him. 98.111.146.179 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

MIA PaCa
There are quite a few references mentioning this cell line, but none of the abstracts say what "MIA" stands for. Anyone with access to full reports? 68.238.249.142 (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will address, thanks for calling attention. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to be an opaque matter, not easily sussed. I have requested the Yunis paper, the best place to try to see this defined, from ResearchGate. Meanwhile, I would offer the conjecture that while the PaCa is a generic indicator of the tissue type of the cancer cells of origin, the MIA is perhaps, like the HeLa case of derived cells, a lab and now general identifier of the anonymous donor from whom the immortalized cells were drawn. Short of come one contacting the corresponding author, which I haven't the bandwidth for on such an issue, the Yunis article will be my last look. Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sensitivity?
"...400 times more sensitive than ELISA..." "Officials at Intel have said that Andraka's method is more than 90 percent accurate in detecting the presence of mesothelin."

How does this fit together? Also: detecting something in 9/10 cases still doesn't say much; the negative predictive value is pretty much useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.10.47 (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Patent reference? any other study / any place where data can be retrieved?
Yes. I found these articles from 2008 and 2009, talking about the Nanotube-antibody biosensor which detects breast cancer cells and the Enhancement of sensitivity and specificity by surface modification of carbon nanotubes in diagnosis of prostate cancer based on carbon nanotube field effect transistors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21836232

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481922

So, the "discovery" of this kid is just an aplication to a especific protein, and is not a discovery of a new form of detection, the discovery was already made (sorry about my bad english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biobono (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

word choice?
"...and the article on analytical methods using carbon nanotubes he was surreptitiously reading at the time.[7] Afterwards, he followed up with more research using Google Search on nanotubes and cancer biochemistry, aided by free online scientific journals." was he surreptitiously reading the article or serendipitously reading the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.42.5 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * listened to audio and he did say he was reading in class and teacher caught him so surreptitiously is correct word, though whether fact of his reading surreptitiously is encyclopedic is another issue. CarolMooreDC 03:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation
Someone recently added that Jack is gay, and although it is sourced, it seems very much out of place in comparison with the rest of the article, which is mainly focused on his cancer detection method. Should it be removed as trivial or stay? NickCochrane (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how many sources note such a thing, how extensively they note it, and why they are noting it. If they are noting it because of him being a positive force for the LGBT community because of his sexuality and his genius, then I could see putting it in. But only a sentence or two for now unless future sources focus even more extensively on such a thing and it becomes more central to him as a person. Silver  seren C 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right now the source heard a rumour he was gay, contacted him about it, in which he responded that he was. But that's about it - it's just a trivial mention, right now it might as well be a line in the article that says "his hair is brown". NickCochrane (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the only news mention is that, then no, it shouldn't be in the article at all. Silver  seren C 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Though I could see adding a relevant category to his article, since he did admit it directly. Hmm...him acknowledging it actually makes this more complicated on how much weight we should give. Silver  seren C 17:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and just removed the one line of info. If it becomes relevant (e.g. He becomes an advocate for gay rights or works with an organization or whathave-you, it should be re-added, but right now it's not relevant.) DotSmith (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the section is WP:UNDUE... CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering about it since I recently edited the page. I found the combination of prurience in the subject matter and coyness in the section title particularly repugnant. On balance I think to is best to remove it, obviously without prejudice to to future developments. That said, I think the idea that this is comparable to "his hair is brown" is highly debatable. William Avery (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's probably the best solution. Thanks for your thoughts. Especially concerning sensitivity relating to rules on Wikipedia Biographies and the age of the person mentioned. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering his absolute openness about it and the fact that he's stated he wants to inspire others because of it, that pushes it over the inclusion barrier for me. I don't think we need to include the quote from him, but including a referenced sentence on his sexuality seems appropriate at this point. Silver  seren C 06:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned before, it's only one source that has mentioned it still, so it seems very much WP:Trivia. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another reference: http://www.queerty.com/gay-teen-invents-award-winning-test-for-cancer-maintains-hes-not-that-smart-20130618/ Please consider adding the section back in; it's important to have positive LGBTQ role models for kids (and it's important for all kids to have good STEM role models) JoeCasadonte (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With that said, I think it should be included now. I'd feel more comfortable putting in an edit reqest for proper wording. I do still think it would be appropriate in a "Personal Life" section. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Should the previous section be added back with a different heading ("Personal Life") and possibly with the additional reference? Is there someone that reviews this stuff regularly or could I/should I make the change? Would it be better to post the proposed change here first? Thanks! JoeCasadonte (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the "Family interested in science" section should become a "Personal Life" section with the sexual orientation included, that way it does not seem WP:UNDUE. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ted Video link?
does that video violate nc-sa licensing? Victor Grigas (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Link to TED usage policy: http://www.ted.com/pages/talk_usage_policy
 * NC material shouldn't be on Commons. William Avery (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions by 162.129.251.72
I've reverted the additions by. The text contains synthesis, several errors and seems to contain a negative POV. Jarkeld (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he keeps trying to add the same things. I'll report him. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Conversation about this happening here: CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To follow up, the user was blocked for violating the 24 hour rule with 5 reverts. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Third party verification.
Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. The recent demands for third party verification of his scientific findings are out of place here. Wikipedia does not require proof that Andraka's statements are true, merely that he actualy said them. The accuracy of his research is a different issue. Such edits have repeatedly been reverted before (see above), and will again.

That said, information about any independent verification or refutation of his work is very appropriate. I'll try to find a template or other way to call for such information to be added. If anyone is aware of reliable sources, let's hear about it. Perhaps a section "Reception within the scientific community" would be appropriate for that. Uberhill 03:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV worries from recent edits
User:CRBscientist is a new editor who is quite heavily placing doubts to Andraka's method and research claims. I'm wondering if this is helping to achieve a NPOV or if some of it should be reverted? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would suggest that the current use of be limited e.g. to end of paragraph, and that  joins this talk. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 07:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced the in-lines with a whole section tag, because it was almost one after every couple words. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section would be appropriate
The last few paragraphs under "Cancer detection method" might be better organized under a separate "Criticism" section. If the text is not enough to warrant its own section, it could be expanded with more examples and detail without too much difficulty, specifically the claim that it's "168 times faster, 400 times more sensitive, and 26,000 times less expensive than the medical standard". 71.193.175.51 (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues with article addressed in series of edits
Rarely in the history of the Intel ISEF has an award winner garnered as much attention as this article's subject. The reason for the attention (this editor's view, as an academic and former ISEF award winner): it arises from a unique combination of Mr Andraka and Prof Maitra's area of study—the very challenging, continuing problem of early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer; from the value to the Intel program and various news venues of an inspiring story; from the (mis)understanding of the popular press regarding how diagnostic devices work, how science works, and how new discoveries really occur; and from actual interesting aspects of the backstory of the award winner's youth, how he conceived his idea, and how he found the mentor that would allow the work to proceed. These perhaps as much as the value of the novel combination involved in a nanotube-supported anti-mesothelin antibody-based sensor, and more than the true value of the idea of mesothelin testing in cancer (established for mesothelioma, not for early stage pancreatic), or use of carbon nanotubes as a conductive substratum for biosensing (already being widely applied).

Unfortunately, as much as the article in place is interesting, timely, and important, it fails in several ways to follow WP policies, and to be encyclopedic about its topic, and so I will begin edits to attempt to move the article in new directions.

The issues were not first perceived by me, nor are they new. There are tags in the article dating at least to Oct-Nov of last year. It was at that time, at least, that another editor noted and posted inline tags (and further specific hidden notes) calling attention to the fact that all text describing the science of the Andraka mesothelin test and its performance were based on self-published/non-independent sources (Andraka award submission to Intel, Intel press release based thereon, and/or, more recently, the Andraka patent application). It is clear, per WP policies, that self-published material is not valid source material for articles (biographical, scientific, or otherwise).

At the same time, the article's sourcing is more broadly and generally a major issue: the preponderance of sources appearing to date are news reports reiterating and amplifying the scientific claims made in the non-independent Andraka sources. Despite these news sources being independent, they cast only the most uncritical eye on the story (exceptions, Herper at Forbes, and to a much lesser degree, the Smithsonian piece). While news reports are acceptable sources regarding the newsworthiness of a subject, they are not acceptable sources for scientific information and claims made regarding the performance of a scientific device (here, a potentially important diagnostic medical device).

After these, there is further set of scientific sources that are deficient, because they are limited to primary sources chosen (mostly) on the basis of claims made for them by Andraka in the foregoing list of self-published work. That is, these science sources are relatedly non-independent, and involve WP:OR in their selection and application to the argument made. Bottom line in this regard: there is too little unbiased news reporting appearing, and there are no secondary scientific sources reporting on this subject (in part, because Andraka and his Johns Hopkins mentor, Prof A. Maitra, have not yet published the 2012 test design and evaluation in any peer-reviewed location).

''Hence, the article needs to move in the direction of being verifiably sourced and encyclopedic. Individual issues with sources need to be resolved, or at least acknowledged, and overstatements of matters scientific and biographic need to be brought into proper perspective.''

Importantly, sources have appeared making the issues clear (and questioning the media circus that arose around this ISEF Intel award), and both Mr Andraka and Prof Maitra have, in the Forbes and Smithsonian articles, acknowledged some of the issues, paving the way for the current corrective edits.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible video to use?
Just want to put this here for the record, so people know it exists. I don't think it should be in the article, but maybe a portion of it could be?



Victor Grigas (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

and another



Victor Grigas (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Andraka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830002658/http://apps.societyforscience.org/intelisef2012/project.cfm?PID=ME028&CFID=28485&CFTOKEN=10931553 to http://apps.societyforscience.org/intelisef2012/project.cfm?PID=ME028&CFID=28485&CFTOKEN=10931553

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

scientist who no one believes
how do we have Andraka described as a scientist/inventor in his intro sentence and "Dr. Ira Pastan, who discovered mesothelin, said that Andraka's method "makes no scientific sense. I don't know anybody in the scientific community who believes his findings" in the same article, living peacefully together? Mbsyl (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

this needs to be deleted
this subject is clearly not noteworthy, except maybe for being mentioned in a wiki article about problems in science. jack did not invent anything. he won a science fair award and got a scholarship. this does not warrant a bio page. just read the last three paragraphs in the sensor section of this article to get an idea of how ridiculous it is to say this kid is an inventor or worthy of a wiki bio page. one can also google and see that nothing ever came of this supposed invention, and that Mr. Andraka has a website (linked on his twitter bio) devoted to selling ghostwriting services to students and is trying to get up to 20k for speaking fees using his contrived fame - a fame which is partly fed by this article. an article which has a history of being "extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (September 2018)".

interesting that my attempt to remove this page was quickly deleted from the talk page, but when someone brings up major issues (like no scientists or journalists seeing this kid as an "inventor") with the article it is ignored for years. Dumvivimusvivimus (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)