You can watch Philip Streich explain his ISEF project himself in this short, flashy video. For more, and to get a real sense of what it's like to present at ISEF, watch this re-enactment of a judging session:

You can also watch him on the stage of of the Grand Awards Ceremony, just moments after he received the Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award. (The Awards ceremony begins at 1 min. 45 sec.)

How did you come up with your idea for ISEF?

Last spring, I had been working on polymer research with Dr. James Hamilton at the University of Wisconsin Platteville when I wondered whether there was a project I could do on my own, possibly for ISEF. Dr. Hamilton had been discussing looking into nanotube solubility with Dr. Jonathan Coleman at Trinity College Dublin and suggested I use a technique called dynamic light scattering to determine solubility. On my own, however, I realized this was not the correct approach since dynamic light scattering essentially only tells you particle size information, and nothing related to solubility. After looking through research papers, textbooks, and the internet, I figured out that a different method called static light scattering was the way to determine that carbon nanotubes are soluble.

What was the result of your project?

The result of my project was that I determined, for the first time, that carbon nanotubes are thermodynamically soluble and I quantified this solubility and its dispersion limit, using a unique ultra-sensitive photon counting static light scattering spectrometer that I designed and custom built. This finding may be a key to finally applying nanotubes’ super properties in real applications.

Did you mentor with anyone for your project and if so, how long did it take and how old were you when you started it?

Yes. I started working with Dr. James Hamilton at the University of Wisconsin Platteville last spring, when I was 15 and I've been working with him ever since. He is a remarkable person who has generously given his time to guide me and support any ideas I've had.

You mentioned that, on your own, you realized that the experimental measurement recommended by your mentor was not the right one to measure nanotube solubility. You then looked around and found an appropriate measurement. What made you question your mentor? Did it create any problems in your working relationship?

The reason I questioned the dynamic light scattering approach was that we’d tried it at the University of Wisconsin Madison biophysics labs, without getting any meaningful results. As far as our relationship goes, if anything, it was only strengthened when I came up with the new approach. I think Dr. Hamilton appreciated how I delved into the problem and re-evaluated and solved it on my own.

It helped that Dr. Hamilton is the epitome of the perfect mentor. He’s both a brilliant research scientist who’s made significant polymer discoveries, and a dedicated teacher who devotes enormous energy and time helping students learn through research. He also genuinely loves seeing his students succeed, and is a great role model: passionate about his work, and always curious and open-minded about new ideas. It’s no surprise he’s earned prestigious teaching awards, and is responsible for making the chemistry department at the University of Wisconsin Platteville a top undergraduate research facility. I’m incredibly lucky and grateful to have him as my mentor.

What level of math and science were you learning at 14?

I was taking general university-level courses in chemistry and physics at the University of Wisconsin Platteville, and I was learning calculus.

I was at ISEF too this year and was wondering what people thought about your project at your local and regional fairs, whether or not the judges there recognized the extent and importance of your experiment, and what you did to explain to them how important your research is.

I think the judges at the state fair appreciated what I did and its significance. However, I don’t think they fully understood and appreciated the experimental approach and theoretical basis of my project since it generally fell outside their areas of expertise.

How much time did you spend on this project (per week or per day)?

The number of hours per week and per day varied a lot; in the summer I often worked over 40 hours while during the school year I averaged 10 to 15 hours, usually Thursday and Friday afternoons, and sometimes weekends. There were also weeks when I was too busy to go to the lab at all, but I would think about my research outside the lab. This thinking process was just as productive.

When did you start working on this project?

Last summer.

Any advice to future participants?

To enjoy and do your best at the process, rather than focusing on winning. There's no question that winning ISEF is great, but there's a lot of chance involved. For example, the chance that you make a “discovery” in the one year time limit, or the chance that another project in your category isn't even more original or significant. As corny as it sounds, by focusing on doing the most thorough research possible, you'll have won the “prize” of learning how to conduct research and how to present it well. Oh, I also recommend lots and lots of practice explaining your research.

Where do you see yourself in five, maybe ten years?

I definitely plan to pursue science, although I have no idea in which discipline. I was encouraged to hear from several speakers at ISEF that what's likely going to be important in future research is a team of scientists with varied disciplines. I find that exciting because I love everything from biology to physics and chemistry. But I'm also very interested in politics, and I could imagine someday combining science and politics to help solve some of the grave problems our species faces, especially global warming.

What do you attribute your success in the competition to?

That's very difficult to answer because I really still find it hard to believe I won all these awards given all the incredibly impressive projects at the fair. I guess my project really met the criteria ISEF lists: it was original, scientifically precise, and, perhaps most importantly, represented a significant advancement. I also think I was good at conversing with the judges and could show them that I deeply understood the scientific concepts behind my project and, with the help of my detailed lab book, could show them exactly what I had done myself. But above all, I attribute my success to Dr. Hamilton, my mentor. I couldn’t have succeeded without his incredible support. He tirelessly helped me in so many ways, from crash courses in physical chemistry, to critiquing my poster, to drilling me with questions, and even gathering any chemistry majors available to hear me explain my research. On top of everything, the respect he gave instilled in me confidence to work on the project on my own.