what makes the story even more awesome is that its not a fission reactor, its a fusion reactor. It might take more energy to run than it can produce, but he is now on the very short list of folks who have managed to get it to work at all.

can't stop laughing from the title alone lol

If you browse for "Conrad Farnsworth" will see that he is now famous from Huffington Post to YouTube, even a Russian news site reported this. According to his LinkedIn profile, he is interning at the Sanford Laboratory in Lead, South Dakota: "The Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, will advance our understanding of the universe by providing laboratory space deep underground, where sensitive physics experiments can be shielded from cosmic radiation. Researchers at the Sanford Lab will explore some of the most challenging questions facing 21st century physics, such as the origin of matter, the nature of dark matter and the properties of neutrinos. The facility also hosts experiments in other disciplines—including geology, biology and engineering."

It was too bad that his mentors let him down, but he seems to have overcome the problem.

Just a note, not exactly the State Science Institute, the facility is funded by a mix of private and public money.
"Homestake closed in 2003, but the company donated the property to South Dakota in 2006 for use as an underground laboratory. That same year, philanthropist T. Denny Sanford donated $70 million to the project—$50 million to help reopen the gold mine and $20 million to establish a Sanford Center for Science Education. The South Dakota Legislature also created the South Dakota Science and Technology Authority to operate the lab. The state Legislature has committed more than $40 million in state funds to the project, and South Dakota also obtained a $10 million Community Development Block Grant to help rehabilitate Homestake."

Nice story.

First, the kid's life is not ruined. The people who matter knew who he was already; and this story just paves his path. Talent shines.

Second, his advisers failed to understand all of the rules. That happened because Wyoming is the frontier. The expertise is in the cities. I know that we wax sentimental for the rugged wilderness as the home of individualism, but it is not. I have been a science fair judge twice and have seen kids with good ideas bring mid-range efforts because no adult in their school was smarter than they were. They got no help, no mentoring. The teachers all approved, I am sure, but had no material support to bring to the effort. So, too, here. The "bureaucrat" who was fired was made the victim for the oversights of other people. I turned a kid in myself. I did it through channels, of course.

These science fairs are over 50 years running. The rules are in plain English. They send you the rules; they post them on websites. Our young genius overlooked one, but that is what advisers are for... and they were not there for him. And the "bureaucrat" who caught the mistake took the sword for them.

I honor and respect the young scientist here. I will follow the story to see where he went since. I only caution some distance and reflection before jumping to conclusions.

... just to add a note. I will be posting on how and why to volunteer to be a science fair judge later today, for now, having thought about the rules all morning (now 1500 hours).

When you enter your SCHOOL science fair, the judges are your TEACHERS and maybe depending on locale and circumstances you get an outside professional, say a biochemist from a hospital who was asked by a teacher.

When you move up to the REGIONALS and STATE fairs, the judges tend to be professionals who volunteer and not so many teachers, most of whom are working and who cannot be allowed (by the rules) to judge exhibits from their own schools.

The difference is that when a professional critiques an exhibit, they help the exhibitor improve it. We are trained to be cautious, but it is not always easy. You say, "Nice exhibit, but why did you not use a bivariate analysis?" and the next judge comes along and asks, "How could you improve it?" and the kid pipes up "Next time, I will apply a bivariate analysis!" and thereby wins a point for future planning.

If an exhibitor took their project to several such events, they would be pumping the system for mentorship. But the rules say that you have to identify your mentors: they cannot be anonymous -- and judges are numbers only to the exhibitors.

Argue it as you will, the rules have a purpose. It is not just "bureaucracy." Earlier, I said that these are "over 50" years old. In fact, they go back to 1942. The rules have long been worked out and often are tweaked to meet the times.