Close
Story Time today i learned (til)

Dressing Up as Dora for Science

October 11, 2022

What’s the first thing you notice about this photo? Maybe it’s the girl in the paper towel shirt with a tin foil backpack posing as Dora? Or maybe the girl with the construction paper boots or the girl with the Swiper paper mask? Or maybe you see me in the paper towel lab coat pretending to be a scientist character in the Dora cinematic universe.

Why are we dressed as 5-minute craft Dora characters, you might ask? Well, in the name of science, of course! Specifically, as part of our team’s Presentation of Action on our solution to a Biosecurity problem scenario set 20 years in the future. Ok woah, a lot of exposition. So let’s throw it back and break down one of the most useful organizations for youth interested in STEM, Future Problem Solving! 

 

Alright, what’s Future Problem Solving?

Sounds like a bunch of buzzwords slapped together, but there is a reason for this I promise!

Future Problem Solving (FPS) is an international program for K-12 that teaches students critical and creative problem-solving by training them in a six-step problem-solving model. A quick run-down of the steps:

  1. Identify Challenges – Given a complex, real-world scenario, what are some problems you can identify? Usually students will use a category list to try to identify problems of a diverse nature.
  2. Select an Underlying Problem – Out of all the problems identified, which problem is the most impactful on the scenario? Think – if we solved this, other problems might also be solved and the users would be the most benefited. What action verb would possible solutions need to accomplish to solve this main problem?
  3. Produce Solution Ideas – The fun part! Brainstorm creative yet realistic solutions to the underlying problem.
  4. Generate and Select Criteria – Create criteria that help you decide which solution is the best at solving the underlying problem and addressing the needs of the original scenario.
  5. Apply Criteria – Run each solution through the criteria you created and rank which one best meets all criteria overall.
  6. Develop an Action Plan – Whichever solution ranked first in step 5 will be your final solution to the problem. You need to elaborate on the who, how, what, where, why of the solution to explain how it could be implemented in the scenario and why it solves your underlying problem. (At the state and international level, teams will create a skit that describes their action plan. The limit is that for skit props, teams can only build them out of household items – hence, our makeshift Dora fits above! We created a cute Dora the Explora skit for our Presentation of Action Plan where I was a scientist explaining the research behind our action plan.)

What makes this model unique though, is what problems are being solved (and here’s where the ‘Future’ of FPS comes in). 

Each problem scenario is centered around a STEM-related topic, and the sky’s the limit with what areas of STEM these topics can derive from. Some of my favorites during my time included: Enhancing Human Potential, Biosecurity, Energy of the Future, Cloud Storage, Endangered Animals, and 3D Printing. Doing pre-competition research on the topic is highly encouraged, as students are given bonus points if they can describe current technology or solutions from corresponding STEM fields.

The program throws you for another loop though by setting all these topics in a scenario that takes place 10-20 years in the future, making students not only think about the current state of the topic, but how it and its corresponding technology might possibly evolve. 

While the program expects you to be creative with solution ideas in this field, it also expects you to understand the feasibility of current tech and how it might realistically look in the future. There are no ‘magic pill’ solutions that solve the problem with the flick of a switch allowed. You can be creative, but it’s got to be something that has a basis in our modern day to get ya points.

So you got the basics of FPS down now. Just like with the Action Plan, let me hit ya with the WHY Future Problem Solving is an integral skill-builder for any primary school kids interested in a STEM career.

 

Why You Should Force Yourself (or Force Your Child) To Join FPS

I did FPS for 9 years before joining Georgia Tech as a Biomedical Engineering and then Computational Media major, so I speak from experience here that this six-step method of problem-solving is very similar to how both Engineers and Computer Scientists solve real-world problems in their respective fields.

Let’s pretend we’re Biomedical/Software Engineers for a moment, and we’ve been given a specific user base that we want to design a device for that solves an issue they’ve been struggling with:

  1. To design a medical device or a computer program that’s meant to help a user base, first you need to identify what problem your users have. 
  2. Oftentimes, you’ll do user interviews and find users have MANY problems. One device can solve a few, but often due to restricted budgets and timelines, it’s not feasible to solve all the user’s problems, so you need to identify which ones are the highest priority (your underlying problem). 
  3. From then, research & design happens. You collaborate with your team on seeing what technology/systems currently exist and what are new methods/designs you can try to create that modify the current tech or are completely new from them (and you make simple prototypes of them). 
  4. Then you need to narrow down which design you want to move forward in with prototyping because there’s not enough time and money in the real-world to try to make every idea all the way from scratch to completion. 
  5. This is where you need to set up criteria to assist in deciding which device prototype you’ll choose as your action plan.
  6. Finally, once you’ve built and tested your device, you need to explain to your stakeholders and users how the device works and solves the identified problems from before. Otherwise, what was this all for besides wasting money?

Did you see all the FPS steps in this engineering/computer science scenario? Granted, while this is a very simplified explanation, at the core, this scenario is what you do while working on projects in these fields. Even though I had no engineering or computer science experience before coming to Tech, it never felt unnatural to me when I was working on design projects because the process had already been ingrained into my being from FPS. I already knew how to critically think, so I could instead really dive into the technology I was working on and focus on coming up with solutions. Imagine starting with a leg-up at GT, and you never knew it!

 

FPS, My Old Friend

Beyond preparing me just for critical problem-solving in STEM, FPS also fostered my love for collaborating in teams. I loved the moments I shared with my teammates: Our countless recitations of topic-related vocabulary cards on the bus to the state competition in Athens, our nervous hands hovered above the face-down scenarios in a sea of international teams, the late nights of coloring absurd amounts of paper towels red, our screams when we won First Place at Internationals for our Dora skit. I wouldn’t change those moments for the world. Who thought something as educational as solving STEM problems for 2 hours could shape the best parts of my mind and life?

To make it part of your life, check out the FPSPI website to see if you can find an active division near you. And if there are no current divisions, Future Problem Solving always welcomes the start of new ones! Get out there and solve some problems my fellow STEM kids!

0Likes
About Author

Lindsay is a undergraduate Computational Media student at Georgia Tech. She loves reviewing the history of medicine and science and making connections to the present-day. In her free time, she loves drawing cartoons and painting.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
“Coded” Language
today i learned (til)
Yanny or Laurel? The Sound that Divided the Internet
today i learned (til)
How Virtual Reality Makes Science Accessible
today i learned (til)
The Do’s and Don’ts of Georgia Tech

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.