ScienceMONTGOMERY Winter 2021 Update

Congratulations to our 2020 ISEF Finalists:

Ben Nachod (Poolesville HS): Analysis of the Degradation and Biogas Yield of the Anaerobic Digestion of PHBV, PLA, Cellulose, and PET Bioplastics with Wastewater Sludge Inoculum

Dhruv Pai (Montgomery Blair HS): PrediGen: Tracing Genealogy of Medical Devices
Anjan Sesetty and Ishaan Jain (Poolesville HS and Richard Montgomery HS, respectively): A Novel Obstructive Sleep Apnea Management System

Ambrose Yang (Montgomery Blair HS): Analogues of the Robin-Lagarias Criteria for the Riemann Hypothesis

Alternate: Ethan Tang (Montgomery Blair HS): Characterizing Cesium Iodide and Bismuth Germinate Scintillators and Phoswich Detectors for Gamma-Ray Space Telescopes

Our ScienceMONTGOMERY Family’s Recent Recognitions Include:

Chesapeake Bay Bowl 2020 (First Place, Team Members): Katherine Lei, Simoni Mishra Bethesda Magazine Top Teens: Viruni Lewwandoowa
Putnam Fellow: Daniel Zhu
Coca-Cola Scholars: Regional Finalist: Amanda Liu; Semifinalists: Eric Hao, Shreeya Khurana Goldwater Scholars:Sambuddha Chattopadhyay, Ethan Chen

Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans Fellow: Sherman Leung

Maryland Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: Third Place: Dhruv Pai

National Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: Third Place, Math/CS Oral Presentations: Michelle Tang; First Place,

Math/CS Poster Presentations: Sadhana Lolla

Maryland BioGENEius Challenge: First Place: Sreejato Chatterjee; Third Place: Frank Horrigan

MathWorks Math Modeling Challenge: Technical Computing Paper & Communication of Results First Place: Teammates Jesse Silverberg, Ambrose Yang, Shawn Zhao

Prudential Spirit of Community Awards: Distinguished Finalist: Dhruv Pai

New York Times Student STEM Writing Contest Winner: Vivian Li

American Statistical Society: 2020 Fellow: Laura Lee Johnson, PhD

AIAA National Capital Section 2020 Essay Contest: First Place Winners: Yash Anand, Dennis Chunikhin, Jenna Shi, Sujay Swain, Ethan Tang

AVASC Foundation ISEF Special Award: Second Place: Ishaan Jain, Anjan Sesetty

3M Young Scientist Challenge: Maryland 2020 State Merit Winner: Sudhish Swain

Society for Science & the Public STEM Action Grant: inteGIRLS: Joy Shi, Laura Yao, Sophia Weng, Avani Ahuja, Rithik

Sebastian Cambridge Judge Business School Worshipful Company of Marketors’ 2019 Award for Outstanding Performance in Marketing: Neil Davey
Broadcom MASTERS Top 300: Joseph Simak, Sudhish Swain, Yun Yeung

Regeneron STS Scholars: Yash Anand, Jerry Shen, Timothy Qian

Prudential Spirit of Community Awards: Maryland State Honoree: Derek Yan; Maryland Distinguished Finalists: Dhruv Pai, Matthew Casertano

ScienceMONTGOMERY Winter 2020 Update 

Congratulations to our 2019 ScienceMONTGOMERY Grand (ISEF) Prize Winners:

Biology: Allie Amerman (Wheaton HS): Tuning Polyplex Physiochemical Properties to Improve Anti-Tumor Responses
Computer Science: Ishana Shastri (Poolesville HS): Region-based Fully Convolutional Network (R-FCN) for Localization of Tumors in MammogramsEngineering: Sanjit Thangarasu (Poolesville HS): AccessO2: An Innovative, Non-Electric, Life-Saving, Oxygen Concentrator
Physics: Kevin Qian (Blair HS): Heisenberg-Scaling Measurement Protocol for Analytic Functions with Quantum Sensor Networks
Alternate: Mathematics: Naveen Durvasula (Blair HS): On the Communication Complexity of Stable Matching Under Metric Space Market Embeddings

We proudly announce our delegation received these awards at the 2019 Intel ISEF (Phoenix):

Allie Amerman: Third Place, Grand Awards
Ishana Shastri: First Place, Fondazione Bruno Kessler Special Awards; Third Place, Grand Awards
Sanjit Thangarasu: First Place, USAID Science for Development Special Awards, Fourth Place, Grand Awards Kevin Qian: Second Place, Grand Awards

Our ScienceMONTGOMERY Family’s Recent Recognitions Include:
Intel ISEF 2019: Garyk Brixi (team member, representing Northeastern New Mexico Fair): King Abdul-Aziz & His Companions

Foundation for Giftedness and Creativity: Scholarship for Practical Robotics Innovation; Sigma Xi: First Place, Physical Science;

USAID Science for Development: Second Place; Grand Awards: Third Place
Montgomery Blair High School Coach of the Year (2018-19): Ms. Angelique Bosse
McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT Inaugural McGovern Fellow: Jonathan Gootenberg
Society for Neuroscience DC Region 2019 Brain Bee Second Place Winner: Ashley Thommana
Association for Computing Machinery 2018-19 Cutler-Bell Prize in High School Computing: Naveen Durvasula
Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: DC Region Poster Presentation Winner: Steven Qu
C-Span StudentCam Documentary Competition: Second Place: Isaac Newman; Honorable Mention: Dhruv Pai
USA Biology Olympiad Semifinalist: Katherine Lei
Google Science Fair Maryland Winner: Sanjit Thangarasu
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship: Jared Lichtman, Eric Neyman
Romanian Masters of Mathematics Competition: Gold Medal & Winning Team Member: Daniel Zhu
International Math Olympiad: Gold Medalist and First Place Team Member: Daniel Zhu
National Merit Scholars: Soumith Gadila, Reethi Padmanabhan, Ananya Tadikonda, Meili Bowden, Deepa Kori, Clara Benadon, Alice Turnham, Vincent Bian, Jerry Yang, Isaac Applebaum, Grace Zhou, Patrick Kim, Shwetha Kunnan Maryland BioGENEius Challenge: Winner: Faith Cheung; Third Place: Seo Jin Lee
Presidential Scholar: Garyk Brixi
Coca-Cola Scholar: Grace Kim

National Junior Science & Humanities Symposium: Third Place, Mathematics & CS Poster Presentations: Naveen Durvasula Maryland Envirothon: Second Place (Team members): Sophia Weng, Katherine Lei, Justin Zhang, Matthew Shu

Montgomery County Youth Volunteer of the Year; President’s Volunteer Service Award: Dhruv Pai

National Security Agency Best Scientific Cybersecurity Paper Competition Winner: George Klees
University of Maryland 2019 Mathematics Competition: Third Place: Timothy Qian
American Mathematical Society “Who Wants to be a Mathematician?” National Championship: Third Place: Timothy Qian
Regeneron Science Talent Search Top 300 Scholars: Katie Kolodner, Seo Jin Lee, Sadhana Lolla, Tarun Mattikalli, Michelle Tang, Victoria Yin

Davidson Fellows: Evan Hu, Daniel Zhu

Broadcom MASTERS Top 300:

Anuprova Bhowmik, Dennis Chunikhin, Ishaan Jain, Anjan Sesetty

Young Scientists Journal Remote Poster Competition: First Place, Life Sciences: Dhruv Pai

What to Expect During the Fair

Category Judging Criteria for Behavioral Sciences, Biology, 
Chemistry & Physics 

Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)

• The problem or hypothesis was clearly stated
• Dependent and independent variables were correctly identified and an appropriate experimental design was used to study the problem
• The student/team was careful and skillful in carrying out the project (including the accurate recording of data)
• The sample size was adequate and included appropriate controls
• The conclusions were supported by data and addressed the stated hypothesis

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

• The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
• The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
• The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
• The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
• The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

• The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
• The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
• The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
• An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
• This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Computer Science 

Scientific Methodology  (25 pts)

• The project had a clear objective
• The project was an improvement over current computer science inquiry
• The student/team was careful and skillful in carrying out the project
• The project provided the execution of the algorithm to demonstrate the utilization of the mathematical analysis
• For projects in theoretical computer science – The project involved creating/writing a new mathematical algorithm to solve a problem in programming
• For projects in applied computer science - The student/team created a simulation or a model, using computer science to explain, demonstrate, or make understandable existing scientific understanding

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

• The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
• The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
• The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
• The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
• The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

• The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
• The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
• The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
• An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
• This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Engineering 

Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)

• The project had a clear objective
• The solution was derived from sound scientific and engineering principles
• The solution was workable (i.e. safe, practical, economically feasible)
• The solution was an improvement over previous alternatives
• The solution was tested for performance under the conditions of use

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

• The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
• The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
• The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
• The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
• The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

• The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
• The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
• The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
• An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
• This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Mathematics 

• Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)
• The project had a clear objective 
• The objective was original 
• The mathematical approach (proofs, graphs, formulas, etc.) was clearly explained
• The project was carried out correctly
• For projects in theoretical mathematics - The student/team understood the project’s potential applications
• For projects in applied mathematics - The student/team understood the underlying mathematical theory

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

• The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
• The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
• The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
• The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
• The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way 

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

• The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
• The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
• The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
• An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
• This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team