Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
T R EN DS I N B I O LOGY C U R R I C U LA 43 with regard to molecular biology, and cited the University of Geneva as a distinct exception. One of Monod's statements is pertinent to the topic here discussed, when he said, "in science, self-satisfaction is death. Personal self satisfaction is the death of research. A man of science who is content with what he is doing and finds that all is going well-that's a sterile man. Unquietness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, and torment, those are what nourish science." The last remark is often heard in conjunction with the fine arts, i.e. , that a little suffering helps to foster creativity. Biologists must not remain complacent, and, judging from the vast amount of current literature, there is considerable anxiety and di� satisfaction with the way biological sciences are now being taught. In his presidential address to the Unnean Society of London, C. F. A. Pantin ( 1 962) discussed various approaches to the teaching of biology. He understood the necessity of maintaining close com munication between the various subdivisions of biology and related fields of science in saying, "It is from these regions of overlap that the unforeseen scientific developments occur." More recently, Nils Sjoberg, Chairman of the National Committee for the Revision of Biological Instruction in the Gymnasia of Norway, was on our cam pus at Oregon State for several months as part of his tour in this country to study the changes occurring in high school biology teach ing. I have encountered similar concern about biological instruction in The Netherlands and , at a recent United States-Japan symposium in Washington. Because science is universal, the problems associated with teaching science also seem to be universal. Not many years ago, you would have encountered widespread uni formity in course content and course offering in biology. Today, you would find a bewildering variety of courses and curricula. Biological instruction today is undergoing considerable change. The present state of biology is due in large part to its rapid postwar development. Jacob Bronowski, in a talk delivered in 1 967, held that the impetus for this accelerated growth resulted, at least in part, from the fact that physical scientists and mathematicians turned their attention to biology after their intensive war-time efforts in their own fields. The expertise they brought with them rapidly opened new avenues of investigation. The result of this interdisci plinary research is, of course, well known. Many equate modem biology with molecular biology, where fan tastic strides have indeed been made, but other areas of biology have also advanced . Three examples will suffice to illustrate.
44 John D. Lattin ⢠Systematics has long been associated with the dusty confmes of museums, yet as I participated in the Systematics Institute, sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution, the presentations of Robert R. Sokal on "Numerical Taxonomy" ; of Richard D. Alexander on "Animal Behavior and Systematics" ; of Charles G. Sibley on "Molecular Sys tematics" have long outpaced their traditional roles. ⢠Ecology has progressed far beyond the level of merely tabu lating floral and faunal inhabitants of field or forest. Examine if you will the recent book edited by Kenneth E. F. Watt ( 1 966) on systems analysis and you will find one modern approach to ecology. ⢠Zoogeography achieved respectability in 1 876 with the publica tion of Geographical Distribu tion of Animals by Alfred Russell Wallace. Compare Wallace's book with the contribution by Robert B. MacArthur and Edward 0. Wilson entitled The Theory of Island Biogeography ( 1 967). Biology courses have changed and so have the books used. As one measure I compared the book I used at Iowa State in 1 94 7 with The Science of Biology (Weisz, 1 967). As you might expect, the difference was startling, not only in emphasis, but more than half of the infor mation in the new book was simply not present in the older volume. a early, we have come a long way in twenty years. Ordinarily, scientists rarely complain about having too much infor mation, but in this instance, the reception of modem biology has not been uniformly enthusiastic. The major criticism seems to be that "the whole organism is being ignored"-this at a time when we know more about the whole organism than ever before. We now have a much better idea of how it functions, when formerly we often knew only that it did function. If we fail to utilize available knowledge, we can only retard the growth of science. If we fail to familiarize our stu dents with the latest advances in all aspects of biology, how can we expect them to 'be prepared for the present, much less the future? The most serious mistake we could make would be to educate our students as we ourselves were educated. The core curriculum has received considerable attention as one means of updating biological education. It differs from past pro grams chiefly in emphasizing the unity of biology rather than the differences. The Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences has published an extensive analysis of four cur ricula considered representative of the major types of institutions f9und in the United States, which should be studied by anyone in-
TR E N D S I N B I O LOGY C U R RI C U LA 45 terested in this question. Cell biology, genetics, physiology and de velopment receive much greater coverage than do morphology, growth and taxonomy. This is only to be expected, since most of the information contained in the first group has a direct bearing on the concepts presented in the second. I believe that a concerted effort is being made to relate the details to the whole. Though we have not achieved complete integration, an effort is being made in course and curricular design and in textbooks. Many years ago we taught biology. Later, it was subdivided into botany and zoology and still later microbiology. Now we are back to biology again-not as a complete circle but more like a portion of a helix, since our level of knowledge is higher. The comparison with the DNA molecule is not mere accident, for surely the elucidation of the structure of this molecule ranks as one of the great discoveries in bi ology. Hegel's theory of historical development-thesis, antithesis and synthesis-is applicable, for modem biology is, in fact, a synthesis. As Whitehead ( 1 929) applied Hegel's idea to general education, so well might we apply it to biological education. One feature common to many core curricula is an integrated bi ology course rather than introductory courses in botany, microbiol ogy and zoology. I believe this to be a distinct improvement for, as I have said earlier, it stresses unity. But it is not easy to design such a course. Right now the team of faculty members who will teach our course at Oregon State is deeply involved in deciding just how much time will be spent on what subjects. We have elected to offer our course during the sophomore year, preceded by a year of mathemat ics (normally calculus) and chemistry and with organic chemistry taken concurrently. Physics will come in the junior year. We are de veloping a second series of courses to follow the biology course dur ing the junior year-genetics, cell physiology and ecology. Thus, our core will extend through most of the frrst three years for our biology students. Specialization becomes possible during part of the junior and all of the senior year. There are other approaches, of course, but the goal remains the same-to provide the biology student with a sound education in the biological and physical sciences and in mathematics. All are necessary for fundamental work in biology. Biology has become one of the more demanding disciplines today because of this very need for ex pertise in related sciences. How does this approach to biology affect students in agriculture or forestry? Are they any different from any other student of biology?
46 John D . Lattin Some think so, but I do not. It has been said that to be an applied biologist, one must first be a biologist. I agree. To draw a line between applied and nonapplied biology is difficult, if not impossible. I would therefore urge serious consideration be given the biology core pr� gram. Some adjustments might be necessary, but I believe the effort would be worthwhile. The most obvious objection has to do with time-just how can a student meet the core requirements and still learn something about forestry or agriculture? One suggestion well worth consideration is a conjunctive tutorial section (or recitation), for credit, under the direction of a professor who is capable of re lating the principles discussed in the basic science classes to problems of agriculture. If such a course were offered in parallel with biology, I believe the relevance of modern biology to agriculture and natural resources would become more apparent to students. It would be un reasonable to expect this to be accomplished within the confmes of the biology course alone. I oppose highly specialized programs at the undergraduate level. We seem to be enamored with formal course work. If a matter is worthy of consideration at all, we seem to think it merits at least one course and preferably a three-quarter sequence . This is quite the op posite of what I found to be true in The Netherlands, where I was much impressed by the ability of the laboratory staff. The education al backgrounds were amazingly uniform-a sound education in the basic sciences and training in how to apply this knowledge to the solution of agricultural problems. My colleague there had had but one formal course in entomology, and that of only four weeks' dur ation. Still, he had acquired a knowledge of the field equal to many entomologists I know who were educated under our system. He could readily enter adjacent fields in order to strengthen his research capacity. This ability to identify problems and bring diverse points of view to bear upon them must become the hallmark of our own students. We are in a dilemma. How can we prepare students for the future when we do not know what the future will be? Their accomplish ments will be determined by how well we do our job. R E F E R E N C E S MacArthur, R. H . , and E. 0. Wilson. 1 967. The theory o f island biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, No. 1 . Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
TR EN DS I N B I O LOGY C U R RI C U LA 47 McElheny, V. K. 1 965 . France considers significance of Nobel awards. Science 1 50 : 1 0 1 3-1 0 1 5 . Pantin, C . F . A . 1 962. On teaching biology. Proc. Linnean Soc., London 1 73( 1 ) : 1 -8. Wallace, A. R. 1 876. The geographical distribution of animals. MacMillan and Co. , London. 2 vol. Walsh, J. 1 968. Molecular biology research, Geneva. Science 1 9 5 : 7 1 8-72 1 . Watt, K . E . F . (ed.) 1 966. Systems analysis in ecology. Academic Press, New York. Whitehead, A. N. 1 929. The aims of education. MacMillan Company, New York. DAV I D G . BA R R Y Biology is one of the more rapidly changing fields in undergraduate education, in part because basic research has generated great volumes of information and in part from changes in the fundamental orienta tion of basic research. Similar issues confront engineering and agricul ture. The impact of the campus on society in the 1 9th century is not wholly clear. The scientist of that period viewed the natural world as static and unchanging. Our situation is now very different-views have changed and so have the responsibilities of the campus. Man's expanding knowledge of geology in the first half of the 1 9th century firmly established the concept of change, an exploration that culmin ated in the publication of the theory of organic evolution in 1 859, events that modified our ideas about the origin of living things and of the earth itself. Then, in rapid succession, came the discovery of the atom, the electron , and x-radiation. Traditional concepts of matter were abandoned. The work of Hahn and Meitner fmally brought us to the splitting of the atom and gave access to its enormous stores of energy. The breakthroughs in molecular chemistry of genes and chromo somes and of enzyme energetics have changed the fundamental questions we ask of nature. A new relationship has developed between applied and basic biology. The applied scientist more than ever before faces the need to use new knowledge in directing the course of change in nature. It is our newly assumed responsibility to give direction to these changes. The methods initially used in the teaching of biology reflected our concept of a changeless world. Students were presented with a mass
48 David G . Barry of descriptive information called "the facts." In such an atmosphere, experimentation was the exception-all too frequently, the facts were taught as ends in themselves and drawing and obsetvation were the order of the day. These methods were successful as far as they went and some very productive intellects were shaped, but new perspec tives face our students. Undergraduate biology today is under pressure from two forces. Graduate research continues to generate new information and con cepts. The new high school programs continue to produce �etter trained students. We in the in-between areas are tom between our historic commitment to "cover the material" and our increasing realization that science must be taught as a dynamic intellectual pro cess. What is the contemporary state of biology? What are the great changes that have provoked us to talk about the "new biology," the new framework? We can describe biology as having passed through several phases : ⢠An early, natural history phase that emphasized the analysis of the distributions of species in space and time. ⢠A second phase emphasized analytic techniques. Out of this work came great advances in endocrinology and the understanding of hormonal controls, which deimed the organism as a system with a multiplicity of feedback mechanisms and led us to awareness of the complex interrelationships between the individual and environment. It could be argued that at this time biology became interdisciplinary. ⢠A third phase brought a better understanding of metabolic pro cesses. We began to appreciate the role of enzymes as specific cata lysts, formulated symbolic models describing interrelationships between molecules and began to visualize form and function at the macromolecular level. These models represent abstractions that place new demands upon the student, requiring sophistication in mathematics and chemistry. New information at the molecular level provides answers to problems at other levels. There now exists a mass of information that far exceeds the limitations of our traditional ap proaches to undergraduate education. In an educational pattern that depends more on analysis than on description, it is neither possible nor desirable to provide all the in formation that students must have in a single course. This situation leads directly to consideration of what should constitute a core of information for the undergraduate major.
TRENDS I N B I O LOGY C U R R I C U LA 49 Early in its existence, the Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biology decided to establish a Panel on Undergraduate Major Cur ricula that would make an "in depth" analysis of what was happening on several campuses that had undertaken extensive reviews of their curricula . It was decided that : ⢠Contact would be made with several top level institutions in cluding those that made use of biology for professional school goals as well as basic science. ⢠That the details of the curricula would be reported in a form that allowed for analysis by computers. ⢠That the study should attempt to identify materiais common to the different campuses, in the hope that the analysis would generate a body of information representing an agreed upon core of informa tion to be presented to the undergraduate major. In selecting the representative institutions, it was recognized that interest and willingness to cooperate were essential. The final list in cluded : Purdue University (a large public university) ; Stanford Uni versity (a large private university) ; North Carolina State University (a large land-grant university), and Dartmouth College (a moderate sized private college). CUEBS staff representatives visited each of these campuses and sought to identify every item, concept or fact to which a professor allotted at least five minutes of time in the core program, on the assumption that a five-minute minimum would preclude those "merely passing references" that an individual instructor might make. Taking a S�minute classroom period as a unit, five minutes represented one tenth of such a unit . The visitors analyzed the in structors' syllabi , lecture notes, student lecture notes, laboratory exercises and examinations. They reviewed lists of textbooks and assigned reading materials, but did not include them in vocabulary analysis. Through personal interviews, time allotments and value judgments were established , based on the information transmitted directly in lecture and laboratory. Thus, the analysis was designed to reflect direct teacher-student interchange, rather than information from supplementary sources. The information bits (five-minute units) were recorded on I .B.M. punch cards that identified the item, the institution , the year, and the semester. The sequence of the information bits in a particular course, and the level of organization (molecular, cellular, zoological, botani cal, etc. ) was also established. Thirty-two hundred vocabulary items
50 David G . Barry were generated in the four-year institutions, which was drawn into a common vocabulary for purposes of analysis. Review of the assembled data suggests that, today , more than one year of general biology is required to prepare the student for advanced work. It shows further that the diverse specialties of contemporary biology are best served by a common introduction. Laboratory work that includes experience in experimental design is essential. While we have always assumed that the laboratories served at least four pur poses-the transmission of information, the development of skills and techniques, the development of experience with experimental de sign, and the ability to carry out independent experimental design we have yet to prove it. I submit that we have accomplished goals one and two rather well. We must now realize that we have never fully committed ourselves to items three and four. Finally, it was concluded that analysis of the basic information bits should be made by vocabular categories, with topic and subtopic analysis. The results are of interest-any three out of the four insti tutions are in close agreement on each major vocabulary area. Agree ment in the data and topics decreases as concern for detail increases, probably as a reflection of the tastes of the individual lecturer. As for the Dartmouth program, it also stems from the fact that their organ ismic biology is not a part of a required core sequence. By definition, a core program is required. The greatest divergence in emphasis occurred in cell biology and genetics-relatively new areas of information-suggesting that teachers approach it from many facets and use a diversity of examples in representing basic principles. Of course, a given information item could be classified under dif ferent headings, depending upon the proffesional tastes of the person performing the analysis. Thus a large fraction of the basic information can be considered as bearing on the molecular level of analysis, but also as related to genetics, to protein structure, to replication, to energy exchange, to basic physiology. The development of the vo cabulary list was difficult, though performed by professional biolo gists in consultation with a number of their peers. In reviewing it one recognizes that the change in biology is primarily a change in how the information is organized and how the questions are phrased-it has been a quiet revolution at the fundamental level. There appears to be close agreement in program planning among the four institutions, although the programs were developed independently. There is good agreement among the core programs as to molecular and cellular conceptualizations. These, when added to the concepts
T R E N D S I N BI O LOGY C U R R I C U LA 5 1 o f ecology and population biology, establish what can be called an emergence discipline of general biology, dervied from general zoology and general botany - biochemistry and biophysics. How much of the detailed information is identical among the four institutions? Seven percent ( 1 40) of the nearly 2,000 vocabular items are shared by the four schools. This 7 percent, however, occupies about 1 6 percent of the total time allotted to the core . If you consider any three of the four institutions, then 25 percent of the 2 ,000 items account for about half of ihe total instructional time (250 hours). This shows good agreement among the different programs-but remember, it is minimal-the similarity is undoubtedly greater than the vocabulary list could demonstrate. The greatest commonality is in the field of genetics, where one half of the items appear in all four institutions at the molecular level ; more than half are common to three out of any four of the institutions. What does this mean? One thing it surely means is that any cur riculum that has not had careful faculty review and analysis within the . last five years is likely to be obsolete. This study should convince faculty and administrative leaders of the importance of giving support to continuing curricular analysis and study. Just how close the curriculum should approach the research fron tier is yours to decide. The new should not be adopted merely be cause it is new, but because it has significance. Each of the institutions studied in 1 96 5 has continued to modify its program ; the survey is already out of date as to details. There is need for a common core approach that extends what used to be called introductory biology into the second or even to the third year as is appropriate to sched ules. In my opinion morphology and systematics now become upper level and graduate study areas that can employ sophisticated research techniques. In no way has their importance been diminished, yet the phylogenetic approach no longer appears to be a useful vehicle for the dissemination of biological information, thus breaking a tradition of some 2,000 years' standing. The contemporary biologist is con cerned with operational concepts of the cell, development, and the mechanisms of integration and evolutionary dynamics that lead to the continuity in the levels of living organizations : molecular, cellular, organismic, and population levels. It also is clear that each institution must develop its own curricu lum. There is no one "ideal" curriculum. A workable curriculum must reflect the interests and competences of the faculty, as must the artie-
52 G. Fred Somers ulation patterns between two-year and four-year institutions. I rec ommend that you undertake a similar in-depth analysis of your own curricula, to discover what you are actually teaching and to give you evidence on where you should go. One prepares a student for an un certain future by giving him a basic curriculum early-one that is flexible and one that does not demand specilization too soon. Keep in mind that 50 percent of all college graduates end up doing some thing that they were not formally prepared to do . The core program-as distinct from the "core course" -should be developed gradually, with participation by all who are teaching the programs. There is no other way to plan an integrated presentation. Efforts are being made to solve the problem of faculty obsolescence. Finally, it is in this context that I recommend the following areas be considered for inclusion in any basic biological program. ⢠Molecular basis of energetic synthesis and of metabolic controls. ⢠The nature of hereditary transmission of the basic properties of cells. ⢠The function and development of major types of organisms at different levels of complexity. ⢠The relationships of organisms, one to another, and to their en vironment, internal and external. ⢠The behavior of populations of organisms in relation to evolu tionary patterns. ⢠The bridge between the observable and the abstract. Emphasis in different institutions will vary with the interests and with the competences of individual faculties. But if we are aware of how our teaching relates to the central body of contemporary hi logical thought and organize our programs accordingly, we will be preparing our students as best we can. As professionals, this is our fundamental responsibility to the teaching process. G . F R E D SOM E R S Traditional approaches to biology are being eroded away by fresh steams of thought and experimentation. I propose to comment upon
TRENDS I N BI O LOGY CU R R I C U LA 53 the origin and impact of this erosion and to do some guessing about the future. From whence comes the current ferment? Why has re-examination of our curricula in biology become desirable? What have efforts at reassessment produced? What does the future hold in store? For decades the philosophic focus of biology was upon the theory of evolution. New findings were, for the most part, tested against this working hypothesis. Genetics made possible some understanding of evolution as a vital process, but even here progress was slow. Then following the announcement in the early 1 950's of the Watson-Crick hypothesis of the structure and role of DNA, research in biology underwent a sudden shift in focus. A whole new frame work of theory was now available, which researchers attacked with enthusiasm and vigor. In the process, the boundaries between biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics became even less distinct than they had been in the past. But the teaching of biology remained es sentially unchanged. In the late 1 950's a number of biologists became concerned over the growing hiatus between teaching and research in biology and organized several conferences, the summaries of which were published in 1 958 (Committee on Educational Policies, 1 958). There the matter rested for the most part . Little happened until the Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences was organized in 1 963. Out of meetings sponsored by this latter group there grew the concept that there is a central body of knowledge with which all majors in biology should become familiar. To this was applied the terms core program or core curriculum. The validity of this notion has been examined in some depth by conferences at state, regional and national levels. The Commission has since established study panels to examine various more restricted aspects of the core program concept and the unavoidable problems that attend its introduction and a consultant bureau to provide ex pert assistance in planning revised curricula or new facilities. You should know something of the contents of Commission publi cation No. 1 8 entitled Content of Core Curriculll in Biology. Report of the Panel on Undergraduate Major Curriculll (Grobstein et al. , 1 967). In the first place the term "core curriculum" does not mean the same thing to everyone. To some it means a closely knit, well integrated, coherent sequence of courses, often necessitating the abandonment of essentially all current courses-a very expensive and
54 G . F red Somers time-consuming venture. Others, recognizing that sweeping innova tions are very difficult to accomplish, took a different route. They assembled a melange of traditional courses into a package that they termed a core curriculum, although those who have given most thought to the philosophical bases for a core program deem this ma neuver less than satisfactory. They consider it only an intermediate step toward what must inevitably be done eventually. Still others, seemingly satisfied with their present situation, largely ignore all these developments. While the Commission recognized that there are obstacles assoc iated with the development of a core program, they rejected the notion that the Commission should itself develop a "model program" that might, in a sense, be sold to biology departments across the country. They felt that this was not their role, but rather that they should serve to stimulate groups at various universities to examine their objectives, to deal with the problems that were indigenous to their circumstances and to arrive at a solution that was viable for them. No two situations are the same. In some cases there are already in existence closely-knit, well-integrated departments of biology. In other cases biology is represented by a multitude of departments, sometimes representing two or more colleges. To integrate the latter group represents a herculean task for which leadership is difficult to find and involves mammoth problems of compromise and salesman ship. Indeed, where this situation exists, the attainment of a close knit, well-integrated core program in biology has been difficult to attain and it may take decades before it can be accomplished. In some cases integration can be achieved by forming colleges or divi sions of biological sciences-in very large institutions this may be the most practical solution. The Commission assigned to its Panel on Undergraduate Major Curricula the task of defining the specific content of existing core curricula . The Panel's strategy was as follows : ⢠Select four high-quality but rather differing institutions that had recently given serious attention to the content of their biology cur ricula. Those selected were Purdue, Stanford, North Carolina and Dartmouth. ⢠Record the curricula in sufficient depth and detail so as to en able them to be analyzed and compared. ⢠Identify the common materials and organize them in a form permitting effective communication with other interested institutions.
TREN DS I N B I O LOGY C U R R I C U LA 55 This study is reported in CUEBS publication No. 1 8 ( 1 967). Ex amine carefully the basic assumptions and the methods used by the Panel, for while the report has limitations; It is the most comprehen sive study available to date . It shows the measure of agreement amongst four institutions, whose programs have served as models for others-one of which, at Delaware, is summarized in the accompany ing table . When the content of the curricula at Purdue, Stanford, North Carolina State and Dartmouth are compared, there is a surprising degree of unanimity-relatively great emphasis on cell biology, fol lowed by genetics, physiology and development. Rather trivial em phasis is accorded such items as evolution, ecology, growth, and tax- Basic Requirements for Biology Majors at the University of Delaware Year Biology Chemistry Mathematics Physics Freshman l Sem General Introduction to calculus 2 Sem General Introduction to calculus Qualitative analysis Sophomore l Sem Concepts Organic Organic Prep. 2 Sem Developmental Organic Organic Prep. Junior 1 Sem Cellular and General molecular Genetic and evolutionary 2 Sem Environmental General Senior l Sem Physical 2 Sem Senior Seminar Physical
56 G . Fred Somers onomy. In the past, evolution and morphology would surely have played a much more dramatic role in a biology program, an aspect that reflects a rather profound change in what is considered desirable for undergraduate biology. A similar, though less petvasive unanimity appears in the "topics in cell biology," but with wide divergence in such topics as enzymes. "Topics in evolution" are allotted only (}-4 percent of the curriculum content-a very small amount of time, relatively speaking, to topics that would have been major items in the past. When one examines these core curricula in terms of "levels of bio logical organization," one once again finds a considerable amount of agreement. Cellular and molecular levels of organization play a much more prominent role than they have in the past, but consideration at the organismal level predominates. Topics at the population level are apparently left to more advanced courses. Finally , if one looks at "major biological disciplines," one finds that about one third of the time is devoted to "general biology." By this the Panel obviously has reference to topics that are not clearly re lated to a single phylum-there is, however, a rather good balance amongst the phyla. To some extent it is a bit surprising that micro biology does not show up more strongly, in view of the fact that many of the people engaged in development of core curricula are doing research in this area. Perhaps it is included under the term "general biology ." Clearly, we are not viewing an accomplishment, but a process. Biologists are finding the necessity and opportunity to examine their teaching. There are a number of compelling reasons why the process should continue: ⢠one faces an ever-increasing number of students, staffing is be coming more difficult, costs are soaring. At the same time new tech nologies and a wide range of sophisticated new gadgets are available. ⢠There are many who feel that biology needs to be treated more as an entity, that we should emphasize biology and not botany, bac teriology, and zoology. They suggest that the content of biological sciences might better be organized according to functional levels molecular biology, cellular biology, developmental biology, organ ismic biology, genetic biology, population biology. There are various modifications of this theme, but all of them differ markedly from the traditional pattern. ⢠Mathematics, chemistry and physics have increasing impact
TREN DS I N B I D LDGY C U R R I C U LA 57 upon the research approaches being used. The tools of the physical sciences and mathematics are largely insensitive to taxonomic hier archies ; it is more efficient to use them without regard to such boundaries. If students are to include such approaches in their school ing, something has to give. There are those who feel that the tax onomic-phylogenetic categorization is in a measure an anachronism, no longer meriting the attention it once enjoyed. ⢠Possibly, out of a new approach to the subject will grow new generalizations. This could be the most important reason of all for redirecting our attention to the organization of knowledge in the biological sciences. RE F E R E N C E S Commission o n Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences. 1 967. Con tent of core curricula in biology. Report of the panel on undergraduate mll,jor curricula. Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, Washington, D.C., Publ. 1 8 . 1 76 p. Committee on Educational Policies, National Research Council. 1 958 . Recom mendations on undergraduate curricula in the biological sciences NAS-NRC Publ. 5 7 8 . National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 86 p. ROB E RT H . BU R R I S I t is always hazardous to predict the future in science ; we usually prove much too conservative in our estimates. From a careful exam ination of the past, and an inspection of recent trends, we try to extrapolate to the years ahead. One obvious trend is that biology has become more quantitative in recent years. Gross description has made its contributions and needs to offer no apologies, but it is a great mistake to insist on continuing emphasis on a field that is clearly declining. We must move ahead, and as a result certain biological disciplines may suf fer. Of course, there is still work to be done in descriptive biology, but it would be dishonest to persuade college students that this is an area of major challenge for the future. Young people are per-
58 Robert H. Burris ceptive , and they will not move into areas that they recognize as unlikely to contribute substantially in the future. Many descriptive biologists have switched their emphasis to ul trastructure. Commercially available, high-quality electron micro scopes have opened up new dimensions and have revealed many fascinating details about the substructures of the cell. Numerous laboratories are exploiting electron microscopy to defme struc- ture that can be correlated with cell function. It now is apparent that many of the subcellular bodies serve as compartments for spec ialized activities in cellular metabolism. Systematics has also been de-emphasized in the general move ment toward quantitative biology. Investigative approaches are being modified, and many systematists are adopting powerful chem ical and biochemical tools, such as thin-layer chromatography and gas chromatography, as aids in classification. These methods must be used with caution, but they are tools of great promise in dis tinguishing between closely allied species. As a corollary to the observation that biology has become more quantitative, it is apparent that the training of biologists increasingly must emphasize mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biochemistry. These are the disciplines that are of greatest help in studies of de tailed biological systems. A second trend-maker that emerges is a general recognition that there is unity among biological systems. The past witnessed a move ment that divided biology into many subdisciplines. Now the move ment is in the other direction, and virtually all units set up in new universities are pooled under the title of biology to embrace botany and zoology and often microbiology, genetics and biochemistry as well. Fusion of established departments may be a traumatic experi ence, but , in general , it is desirable to join forces and to attack bio logical problems on as broad a front as possible. There is an inherent unity among the biological reactions of plants, animals and microorganisms. To be sure, there are certain specialized reactions in each of these groups, but basically the bio chemical reactions and the cellular functions are remarkably similar. Comparative biology has been taught for generations, but there clearly is a greater appreciation now of what comparative biology can teach us than there was formerly. Investigations of basic reac tions have shown that the mode of action of enzymes differs only in minor details from one organism to the next. We are just begin ning an era in which establishment of the tertiary structures of pro-
TREN DS I N B I O LOGY C U R RI C U LA teins will form a rational basis for explaining the enzymatic and immunological activity of proteins. 59 Spectacular advances in genetics have made it one of the most productive and promising areas in biology. It is a relatively new discipline, but attacks on problems at the molecular level have pro vided insight into some of the most fundamental of life processes. Molecular biologists to date have largely emphasized problems in genetics. The discovery that DNA is the material that transfers genetic information, the establishment of the DNA structure, and the demonstration of the transfer of information from DNA to ·RNA and thence to protein, have provided insight into information preservation, duplication and transfer. We quickly reached the point where it was possible to achieve the chemical or enzymatic synthe sis of polynucleotides in a defmed pattern. Transfer RNA has been crystallized in several laboratories and now is amenable to x-ray analysis ; knowledge of its tertiary structure will follow and should be crucial in establishing its detailed mode of action. The genetic code has been unraveled , and the function of each of the 64 triplets in the code has been assigned ; there is much information on how the codons defme protein synthesis and how synthesis is initiated, termi nated and otherwise controlled . The possibility of controlled modifi cation of the information on the gene is close to being realized, and the completely defmed synthesis of a substantial gene unit has been achieved. In short , our knowledge of genetics has exploded during the past two decades, and the promises of its applications in the future are overwhelming. It is apparent that much of this new information will be utilized in a practical way for modifying plants and microorganisms. Man ipulation of genetic material in the past has tremendously increased the productivity of plants and animals. Now that genetics is better understood, its implications for agricultural productivity promise more spectaculars comparable to hybrid corn and high-lysine corn. New experimental tools have greatly expanded potential biolog ical research, although some biologists have a tendency to avoid sophisticated instrumentation and to take refuge in traditional descriptive approaches. This escape mechanism is hardly justifiable ; a biologist should utilize every tool that can help him achieve better insight into the problems he is studying. He may have to go out of his way to borrow the tools or to seek collaboration in their use, but he should do this whenever necessary. For example, chromatographic methods are a powerful means for
60 Robert H. Bu rris the separation and identification of compounds in low concentra tions. Even with simple equipment, chromatography allows the in vestigator to make separations that would have been virtually im possible or prohibitively time-consuming 25 years ago. The mass spectrometer and nuclear magnetic resonance provide means for establishing organic structures in a fraction of the time formerly required. Not only is the identification speeded tremen dously, but characterization can be done on much less material than is needed for conventional organic analysis. Visible, ultraviolet and infrared spectrometry give a great deal of information about complex compounds. Free radicals can be de tected by electron paramagnetic resonance. Circular dichroism and optical rotatory dispersion give information on the configuration of proteins. Molecular weights of macromolecules can be estab lished with facility by ultracentrifugation or by separation, together with standard reference compounds, on gel columns. Isoelectric fo cusing furnishes much more accurate information on the isoelectric points of proteins than has been available previously. Instruments are being built so that the data they gather can be converted directly from analog to digital form for computer anal ysis. Furthermore the computers can be connected to animals or to isolated organs so that a change in the subject will elicit a specific computer signal that is fed back immediately as a stimulus. Biol ogists have only begun to utilize research tools effectively, and they can expect to obtain information more rapidly and accurately by applying the increasingly sophisticated instruments that are becom ing generally available. Lest the implication remain that all is now being run by com puters and by automated instruments, note that there is increasing appreciation of ecology and its potential contributions to biological sciences. The ecologist has long been a voice crying in the wilder ness, a voice coming through with increasing clarity as man contin ues to degrade his environment by pollution of the air, the water and the land surrounding him. Desecration of our environment al ready has reached alarming proportions, and the biological balance that we have known is being rapidly destroyed. Somehow we must learn to respect the environment and to live in harmony with it, and the ecologist has much to tell us about developing a rational program. The interacting factors in ecological systems are extremely com plex. It is no longer adequate to be merely descriptive ; again the in-
TR ENDS I N B I O LO G Y C U R R I C U LA 6 1 formation must be quantified. This will require extensive analyses of pollutants, development of methods to minimize pollution and detailed studies of the interaction of organisms among themselves and with their total environment. The words of the ecologist are being heeded, but he must be given support by those who com mand diverse skills to aid him in a rational study of environmental problems. Knowledge now has advanced to a point where new emphasis and more meaningful research can be applied to multitudes of old prob lems. For example, the biologist has long been concerned with de velopmental biology and the control of biological reactions, but at the descriptive level. Now methods are available that may explain in detail how development occurs in the young plant or animal. An obvious correlative to studies in development are those of control mechanisms, for development is in essence a series of controls and relaxations of controls at suitable times in the developmenf81 pr� cess. Product control, feedback control, genetic control and hor monal control are all targets for detailed study. Neurobiology in the past has told us much concerning the chem ical reactions that occur at the synapse and has given much infor mation about the electrical nature of nerve processes. Now the methodology and background available to the investigator have im proved to a point where we can expect rapid advances in some of the more challenging problems in neurobiology, not only in signal initiation and sensory transfer of information but also in the pr� cesses that occur in the brain itself. Imaginative scientists are at tacking problems of neurobiology from many angles, and there is promise that major advances will be made in a relatively short time. The importance of membranes in separating the contents of the cell from an unfavorable external environment has long been appre ciated, but there has been less awareness of the role of the intracel lular membranes and their function in compartmentalizing various activities within the cell. Biological membranes are marvelous struc tures that exclude certain materials and allow others to pass selec tively, a selectivity that is under metabolic control. The electron microscope has uncovered much of the ultrastructure of these mem branes, and many aspects of their chemistry have been revealed. There are still many questions concerning how membranes select one material and exclude another-far from being passive barriers, membranes are complex and subtle. Immunology is still another area that has advanced from an em-
62 Robert H . Burris pirical approach to an approach that has a rational basis. Investiga tion of the detailed structure of proteins will tell us more and more about how antigens and antibodies interact and the nature of the specificity of these reactions. Accurate knowledge of immunology becomes increasingly important as it relates to the transplantation of complex organs. Rejection of the organs can be blocked effec tively only on the basis of a thorough knowledge of immunologi cal reactions and with due regard for the reduction in host resistance to invading organisms. Biophysicists are. active in applying the physicist's approach to complex biological systems. They have introduced sophisticated electrical and optical instrumentation and have helped define the tertiary structures of several proteins by x-ray analysis, studies that are fundamental to our understanding of protein and enzymatic reactions. If any one thing comes through crystal clear from an examination of the advances of biology in the past two decades, it is that the rapid developments in biology were largely unpredicted by those who taught in an earlier age. Because the advances were unpredicted, it follows that the most pertinent part of our biological training was the block of basic principles that we learned. It is manifestly impossible to cover all aspects of biology in any training program, and over-concentration on biological details of current interest will be relatively meaningless in the future. It is incumbent on teachers of biology to give each student a solid background of biological fundamentals that he can later apply to a variety of problems. Only by emphasizing fundamentals can we give a student the flexibility to adjust to changing times and new information. The realization that we must emphasize basic information in biol ogy led logically to the concept of a core curriculum. I view this not as a currently popular gimmick but as a fundamentally correct ap proach to the teaching of biology. Specialized courses must be de emphasized and the basic core courses stressed. It is encouraging to find that the response of students to core curricula is generally favorable, probably due in part to a fundamental validity and in part to the fact that they are new and hence inherently challenging. The instructor is obliged to add a touch of spice to the funda mentals, perhaps by illustrating the fundamentals with exciting con temporary examples of specialized biology. Interest can also be created through special lectures that explore biological investigations into diverse fields. Small seminar groups also can probe biology in a fashion that will maintain a high pitch of student interest.
TR EN DS I N B I O LOGY C U R R I C U LA 63 There are certain pitfalls in instituting core curricula. One is the obvious temptation merely to reshuffle existing courses into a new format and then to declare that a new core program has been created. Quite the contrary, a core program should develop from a detailed disc.ussion of students' needs, a discussion including repre sentatives not only from biology, but also from chemistry, physics, mathematics, biochemistry, genetics and from other departments that can contribute. Transition to a core curriculum provides an ex cellent opportunity to re-examine critically the traditional approaches to biology teaching. Above all, it offers chance to reorganize mate rial in a fashion that will permit better integration of concepts. A second hazard inherent in the core curriculum arises from its suppos"'dly new and modern image. Awed by this image, the in structor may feel obliged to present only material that appeared in journals published during the preceding month. True, some of this material may furnish pertinent illustrations, but the core curriculum should emphasize fundamentals, should indicate the unity of bioi logical systems, and should not be embarrassed to draw on the past for valid information. The biology curriculum should not overemphasize biological sub jects at the expense of other topics. It becomes increasingly impor tant that every trained biologist have a good background in chem istry, including organic and physical chemistry. He should pursue mathematics at least to the level of calculus, and he should be given an opportunity to study computer science and statistics. A year of physics should be obligatory. A course in biochemistry is helpful to bridge the gap between chemical and biological principles. Attention has been directed here primarily to the student who wishes to emphasize biological science in contrast to agricultural production. Many students who specialize in agricultural science go on to graduate school ; emphasis on a core biological curriculum and on other basic sciences will fit an agricultural student admirably for advanced graduate studies. Indeed, what is good for the biology major is good for the agricultural scientist who wishes to specialize in microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, plant pathology or many of the other agricultural sciences. As in engineering, there has been a swing in agricultural schools to an emphasis on principles. The number of people directly employed in agricultural production has been decreasing, but at the same time there has been an expansion in the agricultural sciences that make the high productivity of our farms possible. The student of agricultural science does not need a core curricu-
64 Robert H. Burris lum designed specifically for agriculture. He needs the same basic in formation and basic research techniques as do other students in biology-the applications to agricultural problems will appear as he engages in research. Basic problems doubtless will be suggested by practical observations. The differing goals of agricultura� production and agricultural science should be kept clear-they require a differ ent type of training. The core curriculum in biology is entirely ap propriate for the agricultural scientist ; it is acceptable, but prob ably not ideal, for the student in agricultural production. Cellular and molecular biology have made great strides and will remain areas of heavy emphasis. Investigation will be concerned with the nature of genetic processes at the molecular level. A new dimension has been introduced with the crystallization of transfer RNA, for this opens the possibility of detailed x-ray analysis of the tertiary structure of nucleic acids. The tertiary structure in tum should give further insight into the functioning of genetic materials that transfer information within the cell. Genetic information is basic to the formation of functioning proteins, and an understand ing of the details of protein operation will be possible only when we know the tertiary structure of these proteins as established by x-ray crystallography . Enzymatic catalysis and its modification by changes in the chemical and physical environment will be apprecia ted better when the tertiary structure of the enzymes is understood. Immunological responses fall into the same category, because these responses depend upon the interactions of proteins ; subtle immun ological responses fall into the same category , because these responses depend upon the interactions of proteins ; subtle immunological changes will be interpretable only when the exact structure of the antigen and antibody are established. x-Ray analysis of the noncata lytic structural proteins should reveal how they form the framework of the cell and its subcellular units. In organismal biology, the biologist will continue to ask how cells function in concert, and how organs function together in the intact organism. Organismal biology stresses problems of organization and control. In the earliest stages one is concerned with genetic control of the fundamental properties of the organism and its parts. Then there must be concern with cellular interactions, because metabolic products of one cell may have a dramatic effect upon the functioning of other cells. By the elaboration of hormones one organ can control the function of another. Much remains to be learned about control through the nervous
TRENDS I N B I O L O G Y C U R R I C U LA 65 system. One can seek data on initiation of signals and the transmis sion of these signals from point to point and on the nature of the re ceiving stimulus in the sensory process, both at primitive and at highly sophisticated levels. The biologist also will be greatly concerned about the still mysterious processes of memory storage and recall. He must explain how the stored information interacts to synthesize concepts from the various centers of memory. Obviously, the ecological approach is highly complex and requires an improved defmition of its problems and a better quantitation of its results. Much of the data collected will be of such complexity that it will require computer analysis to establish trends. From studies of ecology should emerge a better appreciation and respect for our en vironment. Since the agricultural scientist is basically attracted to the land and respects it, he is particularly concerned with ecological re search. Colleges of agriculture present an especially logical setting for research in environmental sciences. In general, specialized courses take care of themselves. They tend to proliferate, because they are pushed by people with a special inter est and motivation, and should therefore be restricted in numbers. They must be founded on a solid base of chemistry, physics, mathe matics and fundamental biology. If the student is to get an adequate background in science as an undergraduate, he has relatively little time for specialized courses ; however, a student with proper basic training can manage the specialties. No one would dispute the view that biology is basic to agricultural science. This is an era in which biology is in the ascendancy, for bi ology holds a multitude of exciting challenges that we dare not ignore. We should take a hard look at our agricultural curricula and replace that which is obsolete with biological training that is basic, valid and challenging. I N. N . WI NST EAD Within a university there are many policies and interests that affect curricula, the individual teacher, and his course. Of these, two merit attention. The first is concerned with our faculty reward system, where for a
66 N. N . Winstead number of years we have witnessed a growing emphasis on research. Unfortunately, this emphasis has occurred at the expense of teaching -especially in the teaching of undergraduates. National prestige in a given discipline is associated almost entirely with research productivi ty, while undergraduate teaching has just not provided sufficient prestige and reward for the individual faculty member-this last is a concern on almost every university campus. Today, universities are attempting to re-emphasize the importance of teaching. One tech nique, imperfect though it be, is to supplement the usual university sources of information with data derived from student evaluations of faculty and from alumni surveys to help identify faculty who are considered good teachers- and then to make certain that the infor mation is taken into account when salary increase and promotion time comes around. The second item is concerned with interdisciplinary problem solv ing, whereby the development of interdisciplinary research programs has taught us that faculty from different departments, and even dif ferent schools, can work together-and that in working together, can solve the big problems. For example, ecologists are found in a tre mendous number of departments-in biological and agricultural engineering, economics, and sociology, as well as in crop science, botany, plant pathology, entomology, microbiology, soils, horticul ture, zoology, forestry, and wildlife. Ecology, in tum, is made up of a multiplicity of subecological areas, such as micro-, macro-, general, population, biomathematical, marine, classical, physiological, crop, plant, animal, and wildlife. In using ecology as an example, I do not suggest that we have too many ecologists. We are beginning to see biologists from different departments-or from different schools-teaching and developing curricula jointly. At North Carolina State, ecologists are teaching courses together and even working toward a joint graduate degree program. Faculty from the departments of soil science and zoology in the School of Agri culture and Life Sciences and from the Department of Forestry in the School of Forest Resources developed a curriculum in conservation which is, of course, a biology curriculum. While it may be inaccurate to say that a trend exists in the area of teaching, we are at least seeing many more interdisciplinary efforts. University administrators have become much troubled by general proliferation of courses, and with the real question of effectiveness, as well as with the rising costs of courses and curricula. For example, North Carolina State offers 2,000 courses. At the recent conference
T R E N D S I N BI O LO GY C U R R I CU LA 67 on biological undergraduate curricula needs for various agricultural and natural resource areas, there was almost unanimous recognition that today's curricula need to undergo a general overhauling and that the three groups-biology, agriculture, and the natural resources must work together to meet their curricula needs. Many excellent ideas have been generated, but one must recognize that the coopera tive revamping of curricula will be far more difficult than it was to bring together research components into desired groupings. This may be due mostly to the limited availability of grant resources for in structional as distinct from research purposes. One should hardly expect botany and zoology-the traditional teaching departments-to do all the teaching in the biology core in structional program. Why should not the faculty in agriculture, in natural resources, and in biology share the load? Certain areas in core programs can use team-teaching-introductory biology, cell biology, ecology, molecular biology, and developmental biology. While some progress toward using interschool faculty has been made at many uni versities, much more improvement is needed. If we are moving to more interdisciplinary courses, will that reduce the total number of courses? All can agree that it should-but few feel that it will. Apparently the present trend toward proliferation of courses will continue. There is a defmite trend now to require fewer hours and courses for graduation-coincident with this is a general loosening-up of cur ricula, so that students have more freedom to choose courses that they wish to take. Freedom of choice occurs primarily among the electives and general education requirements ; majors continue to be structured more rigidly. In truth, this "choice system" sounds better than it works. To avoid forcing students into the same mold and to provide them with a chance for individual development are goals that we seek-yet we expect a graduate to have at least minimum compe tence in a given field. Reduction in total hours provides more time for the "hidden curriculum" that some insist is the most important com ponent of a student's education. There are arguments pro and con on the details of balance and freedom, yet I suspect that most of us would agree that the trend to more freedom is desirable. In any event, curricula committees must take a hard look at the increasing number of courses taught and start weeding out those least needed. Faced by the trend toward requiring fewer hours for graduation, departments sometimes react by dropping service courses. Can biology depart ments afford to do this?
68 N . N. Winstead Are curricula geared too much toward the training of students for graduate school? After all, biology curricula were in many instances intentionally developed as preparatory to graduate school. The idea was that terminal students would shift into curricula with vocational emphases. But in looking at the curricula and especially at the syllabi from many departments, one wonders what is happening to the cur ricula designed for the students who do not wish to obtain a Ph. D. Are too many undergraduate curricula designed primarily for the preparation of graduate students? This seems to be a trend, yet many students will not pursue and obtain a Ph. D. With the trend toward heavy emphasis on molecular biology, in troductory courses have been developed in many universit!P .; that have molecular biology as the central theme. At the same time there is a tendency to use a single introductory course both as a service course for the arts and sciences students and as a core course for the biology and agriculture students. I do not know which trend is better, but I suspect that molecular biology would be an almost total failure as the service course for nonscience majors, and that it may not be the best course for freshmen at a large number of our universities. At Raleigh we have held tenaciously to a one-semester introductory course in the core curriculum that also serves as a general education course. We try to show in this course that diversity is but a "variation on a theme." Hopefully , this will encourage the student to see the unity of life rather than the multitude of confusing facts associated with an array of diversified forms. I prefer this approach but I must admit that we seem to be moving against the national trend by re taining a one-semester introductory course. Entering students vary greatly in their competency and back ground in biology. Some have had excellent biology courses in high school-others still think that respiration means breathing. While ad vanced placement applies to a few students, one still wonders whether all 750 students in the "Bs- 1 00" really belong in the same course. Is there not some better education device than having one class of 400, one class of 350, and 25 lab sections of 30 each? I believe we must use advanced placement more frequently and provide for credit-by examination to avoid having students repeat what they have already learned. Perhaps one technique to encourage more students to take advanced placement would be to give them an A or B, plus four hours of credit. Another question continually arises, i .e . , are laboratories neces sary? With the increasing size of classes there comes increasing pres-
T R E N DS I N B I O LO G Y CU R R I C U LA 69 sure to drop laboratories from science courses, for obvious reasons. Last year, several of our most distinguished professors at Raleigh led small group discussions for nonscience majors in lieu of lab in fresh man biology on subj ects such as pollution, population, environment, and food. The students, incidentally, considered this trial an immense success. Perhaps some of the labs now taught in agriculture, natural resources, and in biology should indeed be dropped, permitting us to devote our inadequate resources to develop first-rate laboratories in a smaller number of courses. At the same time, I do fear that we are about to drop the only remaining lab required of the humanities and social science majors. In spite of all that we read, day in and day out, about automation, audiotutorial techniques, programmed texts, computer-assisted in struction and independent study, they have not in fact arrived on most campuses. The hardware is not the only holdup-although it serves as a good excuse and is very expensive. The software is sadly deficient ! Much more time and effort is required of the faculty mem bers under these conditions than when a course is taught in the regu lar way. Some day mechanical media may become established, but based on our present pace, most of us will apparently not live to see the day when they play a significant role in biology instruction ex cept in isolated cases. Graduate students continue as instructors of undergraduates. We do see some evidence of better coordination and training of these graduate student teachers to assist them in handling laboratory sec tions or, at times, lectures. Yet, there is a real need for more empha sis in training graduate students as teachers. Unfamiliarity with mun dane things-peculiar or old-fashioned projectors-and even more importantly, lack of familiarity with new and complicated teaching media, mechanical devices and instruction techniques is an impedi ment to the new teacher's effectiveness. Just how does one use such gadgets and software effectively? We can help teaching assistants to become more effective and less frustrated by having a competent, ex perienced, and excellent teacher work with them. One can only hope that our senior and most distinguished faculty will continue to teach undergraduate courses. Should we not put our heads together and come up with a better understanding of the most effective roles for faculty and graduate students in biology instruction? A related question has to do with need for coordination among courses and instructors-not only in the core biology curriculum, but also among the core courses and the courses that require them as
70 N . N . Winstead prerequisites. To cite one example, a few years ago we had a delight ful experience at Raleigh-many said it would be traumatic because it came during the Christmas holidays-at which each teacher in the core curriculum and a few related courses gave a syllabus of subjects covered in his course to others participating in the discussion. Then as we discussed the content of each course, we found, for example, Mendelian genetics and the Kreb cycle covered an embarrassingly large number of times. Hopefully, a trend will emerge whereby teachers will know what is taught in the prerequisite courses, where only essential prerequisites will be required and where sequential courses will be built upon the prerequisite. But we ought to ask more questions: Does the under graduate student really need a course in molecular biology before he can take ecology? Does Introduction to Horticultural Crops build on BS- 1 00? How much more can be covered in ZQ-300 if the course content really begins at the point to which the introductory course has taken the student? It should be evident by now that I do not distinguish biology from agriculture and natural resources. I see them as components of the same program. I am encouraged as I look at the situation on the Raleigh campus. Best of all, our faculty is starting to ask the hard questions. Although the decline of the classroom has been predicted by 1 980, I think that prediction is wrong. I do think that libraries, specialized programs and devices, and independent study should and will play a more important role. Yet, I do not see these as threats to the class room teacher. The teacher-student contact will continue to be the most important means of educating future students. Devices should be used to free the teacher and the student from busywork and from that portion of the learning experience best accomplished in other ways, thus enabling the teacher and student to enjoy a more effective and enjoyable interaction.
4 Physical Sciences and Mathematics R I CH A R D M . SWE NSON Although the Commission's committees on chemistry , physics and mathematics operated independently , all three arrived at several sim ilar conclusions and recommendations : ⢠A recognition of the rapid changes that have occurred and are occurring in agriculture and natural resources, and of the complex task of preparing graduates for these moving targets ⢠A recognition of the equally rapid changes that are occurring in the basic sciences, and the ever-increasing need for agriculture and natural resources students to have a sophisticated understanding of the physical and mathematical sciences. ⢠That specially-designed courses be neither watered-down versions of regular courses, nor survey courses, nor terminal in nature and that they encompass a clientele broader than j ust agriculture and natural resources-biology majors, premedical students, etc. ⢠That the background of the teacher and his ability and willing ness to use appropriate examples oriented toward agriculture and the 7 1
