Interdisciplinary
undergraduate education:
Bio2010, curriculum reform
and why ecologists should pay
attention
Louis J. Gross
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and
Mathematics
University of Tennessee
Bio2010:Transforming Undergraduate
Education for Future Research
Biologists
• Released September 2002 by National Research
Council, funded by NIH, HHMI
• Recommendations focus on interdisciplinary
needs in carrying out research in biology
• Explicit curricula suggested that enhance physics,
chemistry and quantitative training
• Numerous reports, workshops, papers have
appeared fostered by this
• Bio2010 Misinterpreted? B. Alberts Science 28 November 2003; 302:
1504 (in Letters)
• Educating Future Scientists. N. S. Sung, J. I. Gordon, G. D. Rose, E.
D. Getzoff, S. J. Kron, D. Mumford, J. N. Onuchic, N. F. Scherer, D.
L. Sumners, and N. J. Kopell. Science 12 September 2003; 301: 1485
(in Policy Forum)
• Introductory Science and Mathematics Education for 21st-Century
Biologists. W. Bialek and D. Botstein. Science 6 February 2004; 303:
788-790 (in Viewpoint)
• Council on Undergraduate Research "BIO 2010" and its effect on the
science curriculum at primarily undergraduate institutions: A Survey.
www.cur.org/survey/bio2010.asp
• Meeting the Challenges in Emerging Areas: Education Across the
Biological, Mathematical, and Computer Sciences www.maa.org/mtc/
• The Interface of Mathematics and Biology: Cell Biology Education
Vol. 3 Number 2 Summer 2004
– Interdisciplinarity and the Undergraduate Biology Curriculum: Finding a
Balance. L. J. Gross
– Intuition and Innumercy R. Brent
– New Math for Biology Is the Old New Math. R Hoy
Organizational Responses to Bio2010
• National Academy of Sciences has sponsored Summer Institutes on
Undergraduate Education in Biology
• NIH has linked with NSF and several mathematics organizations to
produce a report on “Meeting the Challenges in Emerging
Areas:Education Across the Biological, Mathematical, and Computer
Sciences”
• NSF has funded an Overview of Research University Efforts to
Strengthen Connections in the Undergraduate Curriculum between the
Biological and Quantitative Sciences
• NIH has requested proposals to develop a web-based curriculum
supplement for use in undergraduate general biology classes for
science majors which encourages students to utilize mathematics,
computational and physical science methods in solving biological
problems (expected cost: $1-3M).
Bio2010: Unintended Consequences?
Elaine Hoagland. BioScience 54: 381 -2.
May 2004
“Bio2010 and recent upswings in funding to support
a biomedical undergraduate curriculum have
accelerated recent historical trends to produce:
The perception that biomedicine is the only modern
and important area in biology
The loss of organismal and environmental courses,
of faculty expertise in these areas, and of
opportunities for students to become organismal or
environmental biologists.”
“Does the report marginalize non-biomedical
areas of biology? Many people think so.”
“Is there evidence that Bio2010 is causing a decline
in environmental and whole-organism biology?”
In an informal survey conducted (by Elaine Hoagland) of
members of the Council on Undergraduate Research, 14
out of 56 respondents stated that there had been a relative
increase in biomedical to environmental offerings. There
were 169 respondents in total - many did not answer this
question.
How did this concern arise?
• Title of Bio2010 changed from:
Undergraduate Education to Prepare Biomedical Research
Scientists
to:
Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future
Research Biologists
• Perceived emphasis in Bio2010 sample curricula on
cell/molecular courses over ecology/organismal biology
• NIH moving from its long-standing educational role
(supporting traineeships/minority research experiences) to
encouraging undergraduate curricular reform
Relegate
ecology and
evolution to
applied schools
of forestry and
agriculture!
Smaller
colleges
abandon
environment
al biology in
favor of a
biomedical
curriculum!
Collaborate
to jointly
fund new
undergrad
educational
initiatives!
Encourage
exposure to a
variety of
sub-fields for
all biology
students!
Sauron or Gentle Giant?
Is the perception of Bio2010 as anti-ecology accurate?
• The glossy hand-out gives 5 case-studies of which two are
clearly organismal, two are disease related, and one is
both.
• Bio2010 gives 12 case studies of which 3 focus on
cell/biomedical, 3 on organismal, and 6 on themes which
cover both.
• The four sample curricula each include upper-division
courses in molecular biology, genetics, cell and
developmental biology, and ecology/evolutionary biology.
• The report has many suggestions that are simply untenable
(e.g. the Math/CS list of topics would be great for a math
major!). The Committee was mostly NAS members and
the report reflects their experiences with students.
I encourage you to read it carefully and come to your own
conclusion.
NSF supported a survey of Research University
Efforts to Strengthen Connections in the
Undergraduate Curriculum between the
Biological and Quantitative Sciences
Wendy Klatkin and Gayle Reznik, SUNY StonyBrook
Reinvention Center (Draft report - June 2004)
This formally surveyed directors of undergraduate
biology and carried out in-depth interviews with faculty
from biology and quantitative departments at 68 of the
123 Carnegie Foundation listed research universities.
There is no mention at all in the report of concerns about
the biomedical/organismal dicotomy that Hoagland
emphasizes in her BioScience article.
Assessment of Sauron vs. Gentle Giant
• In the proposal submitted to NIH for General
Biology course modules, we argued that these
should be built around organisms that entering
students could relate to, rather than
cells/proteins/molecular bio about which they
have developed little intuition. If approved this
implies there is an open attitude within NIH
towards topic diversity within biology education.
(Note: I already have experienced NIGMS
tolerance towards organismal biology since they
supported a sequence of short courses on the
mathematics of biological complexity that had
heavy population-level content).
The real challenge to promoting
interdisciplinarity is:
not enough time!
• Schools have been pushed towards 120 hour
limits on graduation requirements.
• Reverse the move to semesters that has
greatly limited the diversity of topics
undergraduates have an opportunity to
investigate – GO BACK TO THE
QUARTER SYSTEM!
Beyond Bio2010
Our cell/molecular colleagues really need us to:
•
•
provide all biology students with an evolutionary
perspective that simply does not appear in the
sub-organism-level courses
show them how to do integrative science and get
out of the mire of reductionism - as ecologists we
deal with multiple interacting factors, combining
results from numerous studies, analyzing
interacting systems at multiple scales. This is
exactly what is needed for whole organism
physiology, pharmaco-genomics, and
personalized medicine, as well as linking to
economics and social systems.
Institutional support for
Interdisciplinarity
In developing future researchers, particularly in biology,
the implication of Bio2010 is that breadth of exposure to
concepts from various fields should take precedence over
depth. So it is past time to initiate a "back to quarters
movement". At the least, discussion of such an option
encourages our colleagues to acknowledge the importance
of interdisciplinarity.
To encourage this even further, we might urge our
institutions to place tenure at the College or University
level, rather than in a Department, potentially easing the
acceptance of colleagues who don't quite fit the mold of a
single discipline, yet are the best educators for a future
generation of researchers.
I for one hope that those within the ecological
education community will use Bio2010 to
foster collaborations with those at suborganism level, and use this as an opportunity
to encourage NIH/NSF to collaborate more
effectively as well on the integrative
requirements of undergraduate biology
education. I urge that we not devote lots of
energy to further dissension - such dissension
will merely further lessen our impact on the
broader science education agenda.
Major BIO2010
Recommendations
1.
Schools should reexamine current approaches to see if
they meet the needs of today’s undergraduate biology
students. Those selecting the new approaches should
consider the importance of building a strong
foundation in mathematics, and the physical and
information sciences to prepare students for research
that is increasingly interdisciplinary in character.
This implementation should be accompanied by a
process of assessment.
2. Concepts, examples, and techniques from
mathematics, and the physical and information sciences
should be included in biology courses, and biological
concepts and examples should be included in other
science courses. Faculty must work collaboratively to
integrate mathematics and physical sciences into life
science courses as well as providing avenues for
incorporating life science examples that reflect the
emerging nature of the discipline into courses taught in
mathematics and physical sciences.
3. School administrators, as well as funding
agencies, should support mathematics and science
faculty in the development or adaptation of
techniques that improve interdisciplinary
education for biologists. This would include
courses, modules (on biological problems suitable
for study in mathematics and physical science
courses and vice versa), and other teaching
materials. Administrative and financial barriers
to cross-departmental collaboration between
faculty must be eliminated.
4. Laboratory courses should be as
interdisciplinary as possible, since
laboratory experiments confront students
with real-world observations do not
separate well into conventional
disciplines
5. All students should be encouraged to
pursue independent research as early as
is practical in their education. They
should be able to receive academic credit
for independent research done in
collaboration with faculty or with offcampus researchers
6. Seminar-type courses that highlight cuttingedge developments in biology should be
provided on a continual and regular basis
throughout the four-year undergraduate
education of students. Communicating the
excitement of biological research is crucial to
attracting, retaining, and sustaining a greater
diversity of students to the field. These courses
would combine presentations by faculty with
student projects on research topics.
7. Medical school admissions
requirements and the Medical College
Admissions Test (MCAT) are hindering
change in the undergraduate biology
curriculum and should be reexamined in
light of the recommendations in this
report.
8. Faculty development is a crucial component
to improving undergraduate biology
education. Efforts must be made on
individual campuses and nationally to
provide faculty the time necessary to refine
their own understanding of how the
integrative relationships of biology,
mathematics, and the physical sciences can be
best melded into either existing courses or
new courses in the particular areas of science
in which they teach.