Making education matter in higher education


It may seem self-evident that providing an effective education, the type of educational experiences that lead to a useful bachelors degree and serve as the foundation for life-long learning and growth, should be a prime aspirational driver of Colleges and Universities (1).  We might even expect that various academic departments would compete with one another to excel in the quality and effectiveness of their educational outcomes; they certainly compete to enhance their research reputations, a competition that is, at least in part, responsible for the retention of faculty, even those who stray from an ethical path. Institutions compete to lure research stars away from one another, often offering substantial pay raises and research support (“Recruiting or academic poaching?”).  Yet, my own experience is that a department’s performance in undergraduate educational outcomes never figures when departments compete for institutional resources, such as supporting students, hiring new faculty, or obtaining necessary technical resources (2).

 I know of no example (and would be glad to hear of any) of a University hiring a professor based primarily on their effectiveness as a instructor (3).

In my last post (link), I suggested that increasing the emphasis on measures of departments’ educational effectiveness could help rebalance the importance of educational and research reputations, and perhaps incentivize institutions to be more consistent in enforcing ethical rules involving research malpractice and the abuse of students, both sexual and professional. Imagine if administrators (Deans and Provosts and such) were to withhold resources from departments that are performing below acceptable and competitive norms in terms of undergraduate educational outcomes?

Outsourced teaching: motives, means and impacts

Sadly, as it is, and particularly in many science departments, undergraduate educational outcomes have little if any impact on the perceived status of a department, as articulated by campus administrators. The result is that faculty are not incentivized to, and so rarely seriously consider the effectiveness of their department’s course requirements, a discussion that would of necessity include evaluating whether a course’s learning goals are coherent and realistic, whether the course is delivered effectively, whether it engages students (or is deemed irrelevant), and whether students’ achieved the desired learning outcomes, in terms of knowledge and skills achieved, including the ability to apply that knowledge effectively to new situations.  Departments, particularly research focussed (dependent) departments, often have faculty with low teaching loads, a situation that incentivizes the “outsourcing” of key aspects of their educational responsibilities.  Such outsourcing comes in two distinct forms, the first is requiring majors to take courses offered by other departments, even if such courses are not well designed, delivered, or (in the worst cases) relevant to the major.  A classic example is to require molecular biology students to take macroscopic physics (LINK) or calculus courses, without regard to whether the materials these courses present is ever used within the major.  Expecting a student majoring in the life sciences to embrace a course that (perhaps rightly) seems irrelevant to their discipline can alienate a student, and poses an unnecessary obstacle to student success, rather than providing students with needed knowledge and skills tools.  Generally, the incentives necessary to generate a relevant course, for example, a molecular level physics course that would engage molecular biology students, are simply not there.  A version of this situation is to require courses that are poorly designed or delivered (general chemistry is often used as the poster child for such a course). These are courses that have high failure rates, sometimes justified in terms of “necessary rigor” when in fact better course design could (and has) resulted in lower failure rates and improved learning outcomes [link].  In addition, there are perverse incentives associated with requiring courses offered by other departments, as they reduce the number of courses a department’s faculty needs to teach, and can lead to fewer students proceeding into upper division courses.

The second type of outsourcing involves excusing tenure track faculty from teaching introductory courses, and having them replaced by lower paid instructors or lecturers.  Independently of whether instructors, lecturers, or tenure track professors make for better teaching, replacing faculty with instructors sends an implicit message to students.  At the same time, the freedom of instructors/lecturers to adopt an effective (socratic) approach to teaching is often severely constrained; common exams can force classes to move in lock step, independently of whether that pace is optimal for student engagement and learning. Generally, instructors/lecturers do not have the freedom to adjust what they teach, to modify the emphasis and time they spend on specific topics in response to their students’ needs. How an instructor instructs their students suffers when teachers do not have the freedom to customize their interactions with students in response to where they are intellectually.  This is particularly detrimental in the case of underrepresented or underprepared students. Generally, a flexible and adaptive approach to instruction (including ancillary classes on how to cope with college: see An alternative to remedial college classes gets results) can address many issues, and bring the majority of students to a level of competence, whereas tracking students into remedial classes can succeed in driving them out of a major or college (see Colleges Reinvent Classes to Keep More Students in Science and Redesigning a Large-Enrollment Introductory Biology Course and Does Remediation Work for All Students? )

How to address this imbalance, how can we reset the pecking order so that effective educational efforts actually matter to a department? 

My (modest) suggestion is to base departmental rewards on objective measures of educational effectiveness.   And by rewards I mean both at the level of individuals (salary and status) as well as support for graduate students, faculty positions, start up funds, etc.  What if, for example, faculty in departments that excel at educating their students received a teaching bonus, or if the number of graduate students within a department supported by the institution was determined not by the number of classes these graduate students taught (courses that might not be particularly effective or engaging) but rather by a departments’ undergraduate educational effectiveness, as measured by retention, time to degree, and learning outcomes (see below)?  The result could well be a drive within a department to improve course and curricular effectiveness to maximize education-linked rewards.  Given that laboratory courses, the courses most often taught by science graduate students, are multi-hour schedule disrupting events, of limited demonstrable educational effectiveness, that complicate student course scheduling, removing requirements for lab courses deemed unnecessary (or generating more effective versions), would be actively rewarded (of course, sanctions for continuing to offer ineffective courses would also be useful, but politically more problematic.) The same can be said, for example, for a biology department that requires a 4 to 5 credit hour physics or chemistry course, a course that could lead to students changing majors.  Currently it is “easy” for a department to require its students to take such courses without critically evaluating whether they are “worth it”, educationally.  Imagine how a department’s choices of required courses would change if the impact of high failure rates (which I would argue is a proxy for poorly designed  and delivered courses) directly impacted the rewards reaped by a department. There would be an incentive to look critically at such courses, to determine whether they are necessary and if so, well designed and delivered. Departments would serve their own interests if they invested in the development of courses  that better served their disciplinary goals, courses likely to engage their students’ interests.

So how do we measure a department’s educational efficacy?

There are three obvious metrics: i) retention of students as majors (or in the case “service courses” whether students master what it is the course claims to teach); ii) time to degree (and by that I mean the percentage of students who graduate in 4 years, rather than the 6 year time point reported in response to federal regulations (six year graduation rate | background on graduation rates); and iii) objective measures of student learning outcomes attained and skills achieved. The first two are easy, Universities already know these numbers.  Moreover they are directly influenced by degree requirements – requiring students to take boring and/or apparently irrelevant courses serves to drive a subset of students out of a major.  By making courses relevant and engaging, more students can be retained in a degree program. At the same time, thoughtful course design can help students  pass through even the most rigorous (difficult) of such courses. The third, learning outcomes, is significantly more challenging to measure, since universal metrics are (largely) missing or superficial.  A few disciplines, such as chemistry, support standardized assessments, although one could argue with what such assessments measure.  Nevertheless, meaningful outcomes measures are necessary, in much the same way that Law and Medical boards and the Fundamentals of Engineering exam serve to help insure (although they do not guarantee) the competence of practitioners. One could imagine using parts of standardized exams, such as discipline specific GRE exams, to generate outcomes metrics, although more informative assessment instruments would clearly be preferable. The initiative in this area could be taken by professional societies, college consortia (such as the AAU), and research foundations, as a critical driver for education reform, increased effectiveness, and improved cost-benefit outcomes (something that could help address the growing income inequality in our country and make success in higher education an important factor contributing to an institution’s reputation.


A footnote or two…
1. My comments are primarily focused on research universities, since that is where my experience lies; these are, of course, the majority of the largest universities (in a student population sense).
2. Although my experience is limited, having spent my professorial career at a single institution, conversations with others leads me to conclude that it is not unique.
3. The one obvious exception would be the hiring of  coaches of sports teams, since their success in teaching (coaching) is more directly discernible and impactful on institutional finances and reputation).

Balancing research prestige, human decency, and educational outcomes.


Or why do academic institutions shield predators?  Many working scientists, particularly those early in their careers or those oblivious to practical realities, maintain an idealistic view of the scientific enterprise. They see science as driven by curious, passionate, and skeptical scholars, working to build an increasingly accurate and all encompassing understanding of the material world and the various phenomena associated with it, ranging from the origins of the universe and the Earth to the development of the brain and the emergence of consciousness and self-consciousness (1).  At the same time, the discipline of science can be difficult to maintain (see PLoS post:  The pernicious effects of disrespecting the constraints of science). Scientific research relies on understanding what people have already discovered and established to be true; all too often, exploring the literature associated with a topic can reveal that one’s brilliant and totally novel “first of its kind” or “first to show” observation or idea is only a confirmation or a modest extension of someone else’s previous discovery. That is the nature of the scientific enterprise, and a major reason why significant new discoveries are rare and why graduate students’ Ph.D. theses can take years to complete.

Acting to oppose a rigorous scholarly approach are the real life pressures faced by working scientists: a competitive landscape in which only novel observations  get rewarded by research grants and various forms of fame or notoriety in one’s field, including a tenure-track or tenured academic position. Such pressures encourage one to distort the significance or novelty of one’s accomplishments; such exaggerations are tacitly encouraged by the editors of high profile journals (e.g. Nature, Science) who seek to publish “high impact” claims, such as the claim for “Arsenic-life” (see link).  As a recent and prosaic example, consider a paper that claims in its title that “Dietary Restriction and AMPK Increase Lifespan via Mitochondrial Network and Peroxisome Remodeling” (link), without mentioning (in the title) the rather significant fact that the effect was observed in the nematode C. elegans, whose lifespan is typically between 300 to 500 hours and which displays a trait not found in humans (and other vertebrates), namely the ability to assume a highly specialized “dauer” state that can survive hostile environmental conditions for months. Is the work wrong or insignificant? Certainly not, but it is presented to the unwary (through the Harvard Gazette under the title, “In pursuit of healthy aging: Harvard study shows how intermittent fasting and manipulating mitochondrial networks may increase lifespan,” with the clear implication that people, including Harvard alumni, might want to consider the adequacy of their retirement investments


Such pleas for attention are generally quickly placed in context and their significance evaluated, at least within the scientific community – although many go on to stimulate the economic health of the nutritional supplement industry.  Lower level claims often go unchallenged, just part of the incessant buzz associated with pleas for attention in our excessively distracted society (see link).  Given the reward structure of the modern scientific enterprise, the proliferation of such claims is not surprising.  Even “staid” academics seek attention well beyond the immediate significance of their (tax-payer funded) observations. Unfortunately, the explosively expanding size of the scientific enterprise makes policing such transgressions (generally through peer review or replication) difficult or impossible, at least in the short term.

The hype and exaggeration associated with some scientific claims for attention are not the most distressing aspect of the quest for “reputation.”  Rather, there are growing number of revelations of academic institutions protecting those guilty of abusing their dependent colleagues. These reflect how scientific research teams are organized. Most scientific studies involve groups of people working with one another, generating data, testing ideas, and eventually publishing their observations and conclusions, and speculating on their broader implications.

Research groups can vary greatly in size.  In some areas, they involve isolated individuals, whether thinkers (theorists) or naturalists, in the mode of Darwin and Wallace.  In other cases, these are larger and include senior researchers, post-doctoral  fellows, graduate students, technicians, undergraduates,  and even high school students. Such research groups can range from the small (2 to 3 people) to the significantly larger (~20-50 people); the largest of such groups are associated mega-projects, such as the human genome project and the Large Hadron Collider-based search for the Higgs boson (see: Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors).  A look at this site [link] describing the human genome project reflects two aspects of such mega-science: 1) while many thousands of people were involved [see Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome], generally only the “big names” are singled out for valorization (e.g., receiving a Nobel Prize). That said, there would be little or no progress without general scientific community that evaluates and extends ideas and observations. In this context, “lead investigators” are charged primarily with securing the funds needed to mobilize such groups, convincing funders that the work is significant; it is members of the group that work out the technical details and enable the project to succeed.

As with many such social groups, there are systems in play that serve to establish the status of the individuals involved – something necessary (apparently) in a system in which individuals compete for jobs, positions, and resources.  Generally, one’s status is established through recommendations from others in the field, often the senior member(s) of one’s research group or the (generally small) group of senior scientists who work in the same or a closely related area. The importance of professional status is particularly critical in academia, where the number of senior (e.g. tenured or tenure-track professorships) is limited. The result is a system that is increasingly susceptible to the formation of clubs, membership in which is often determined by who knows who, rather than who has done what (see Steve McKnight’s “The curse of committees and clubs”). Over time, scientific social status translates into who is considered productive, important, trustworthy, or (using an oft-misused term) brilliant. Achieving status can mean putting up with abusive and unwanted behaviors (particularly sexual). Examples of this behavior have recently been emerging with increasing frequency (which has been extensively described elsewhere: see Confronting Sexual Harassment in Science; More universities must confront sexual harassment; What’s to be done about the numerous reports of faculty misconduct dating back years and even decades?; Academia needs to confront sexism; and The Trouble With Girls’: The Enduring Sexism in Science).

So why is abusive behavior tolerated?  One might argue that this reflects humans’ current and historical obsession with “stars,” pharaohs, kings, and dictators as isolated geniuses who make things work. Perhaps the most visible example of such abused scientists (although there are in fact many others : see History’s Most Overlooked Scientists) is Rosalind Franklin, whose data was essential to solving the structure of double stranded DNA, yet whose contributions were consistently and systematically minimized, a clear example of sexual marginalization. In this light, many is the technician who got an experiment to “work,” leading to their research supervisor’s being awarded the prizes associated with the breakthrough (2).

Amplifying the star effect is the role of research status at the institutional level;  an institution’s academic ranking is often based upon the presence of faculty “stars.” Perhaps surprisingly to those outside of academia, an institution’s research status, as reflected in the number of stars on staff, often trumps its educational effectiveness, particularly with undergraduates, that is the people who pay the bulk of the institution’s running costs. In this light, it is not surprising that research stars who display various abusive behavior (often to women) are shielded by institutions from public censure.

So what is to be done? My own modest proposal (to be described in more detail in a later post) is to increase the emphasis on institution’s (and departments within institutions) effectiveness at undergraduate educational success. This would provide a counter-balancing force that could (might?) place research status in a more realistic context.

a footnote or two:

  1.  on the assumption that there is nothing but a material world.
  2. Although I am no star, I would acknowledge Joe Dent, who worked out the whole-mount immunocytochemical methods that we have used extensively in our work over the years).
  3. Thanks to Becky for editorial comments as well as a dramatic reading!

Is it time to start worrying about conscious human “mini-brains”?

A human iPSC cerebral organoid in which pigmented retinal epithelial cells can be seen (from the work of McClure-Begley, Mike Klymkowsky, and William Old.)

The fact that experiments on people are severely constrained is a major obstacle in understanding human development and disease.  Some of these constraints are moral and ethical and clearly appropriate and necessary given the depressing history of medical atrocities.  Others are technical, associated with the slow pace of human development. The combination of moral and technical factors has driven experimental biologists to explore the behavior of a wide range of “model systems” from bacteria, yeasts, fruit flies, and worms to fish, frogs, birds, rodents, and primates.  Justified by the deep evolutionary continuity between these organisms (after all, all organisms appear to be descended from a single common ancestor and share many molecular features), experimental evolution-based studies of model systems have led to many therapeutically valuable insights in humans – something that I suspect a devotee of intelligent design creationism would be hard pressed to predict or explain (post link).

While humans are closely related to other mammals, it is immediately obvious that there are important differences – after all people are instantly recognizable from members of other closely related species and certainly look and behave differently from mice. For example, the surface layer of our brains are extensively folded (they are known as gyrencephalic) while the brain of a mouse is smooth as a baby’s bottom (and referred to as lissencephalic). In humans, the failure of the brain cortex to fold is known as lissencephaly, a disorder associated with several severe neurological defects. With the advent of more and more genomic sequence data, we can identify human specific molecular (genomic) differences. Many of these sequence differences occur in regions of our DNA that regulate when and where specific genes are expressed.  Sholtis & Noonan (1) provide an example: the HACNS1 locus is a 81 basepair region that is highly conserved in various vertebrates from birds to chimpanzees; there are 13 human specific changes in this sequence that appear to alter its activity, leading to human-specific changes in the expression of nearby genes (↓). At this point ~1000 genetic elements that are different in humans compared to other vertebrates have been identified and more are likely to emerge (2).  Such human-specific changes can make modeling human-specific behaviors, at the cellular, tissue, organ, and organism level, in non-human model systems difficult and problematic (3, 4).   It is for this reason that scientists have attempted to generate better human specific systems.

One particularly promising approach is based on what are known as embryonic stem cells (ESCs) or pluripotent stem cells (PSCs). Human embryonic stem cells are generated from the inner cell mass of a human embryo and so involve the destruction of that embryo – which raises a number of ethical and religious concerns as to when “life begins” (5)(more on that in a future post).  Human pluripotent stem cells are isolated from adult tissues but in most cases require invasive harvesting methods that limit their usefulness.  Both ESCs and PSCs can be grown in the laboratory and can be induced to differentiate into what are known as gastruloids.  Such gastruloids can develop anterior-posterior (head-tail), dorsal-ventral (back-belly), and left-right axes analogous to those found in embryos (6) and adults (top panel ↓). In the case of PSCs, the gastruloid (bottom panel ↓) is essentially a twin of the organism from which the PSCs were derived, a situation that raises difficult questions: is it a distinct individual, is it the property of the donor or the creation of a technician.  The situation will be further complicated if (or rather, when) it becomes possible to generate viable embryos from such gastruloids.

 

The Nobel prize winning work of Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka (7), who devised methods to take differentiated (somatic) human cells and reprogram them into ESC/PSC-like cells, cells known as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)(8), represented a technical breakthrough that jump-started this field. While the original methods derived sample cells from tissue biopsies, it is possible to reprogram kidney epithelial cells recovered from urine, a non-invasive approach (910).  Subsequently, Madeline Lancaster, Jurgen Knōblich, and colleagues devised an approach by which such cells could be induced to form what they termed “cerebral organoids” (although Yoshiki Sasai and colleagues were the first to generate neuronal organoids); they used this method to examine the developmental defects associated with microencephaly (11).  The value of the approach was rapidly recognized and a number of studies on human conditions, including  lissencephaly (12), Zika-virus infection-induced microencephaly (13), and Down’s syndrome (14);  investigators have begun to exploit these methods to study a range of human diseases.

The production of cerebral organoids from reprogrammed human somatic cells has also attracted the attention of the media (15).  While “mini-brain” is certainly a catchier name, it is a less accurate description of a cerebral organoid, itself possibly a bit of an overstatement, since it is not clear exactly how “cerebral” such organoids are. For example, the developing brain is patterned by embryonic signals that establish its asymmetries; it forms at the anterior end of the neural tube (the nascent central nervous system and spinal cord) and with distinctive anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and left-right asymmetries, something that simple cerebral organoids do not display.  Moreover, current methods for generating cerebral organoids involve primarily what are known as neuroectodermal cells – our nervous system (and that of other vertebrates) is a specialized form of the embryo’s surface layer that gets internalized during development. In the embryo, the developing neuroectoderm interacts with cells of the circulatory system (capillaries, veins, and arteries), formed by endothelial cells and what are known as pericytes that surround them. These cells, together with interactions with glial cells (astrocytes, a non-neuronal cell type) combine to form the blood brain barrier.  Other glial cells (oligodendrocytes) are also present; in contrast, both types of glia (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) are rare in the current generation of cerebral organoids. Finally, there are microglial cells,  immune system cells that originate from outside the neuroectoderm; they invade and interact with neurons and glia as part of the brain’s dynamic neural system. The left panel of the figure shows, in highly schematic form how these cells interact (16). The right panel is a drawing of neural tissue stained by the Golgi method (17), which reveals ~3-5% of the neurons present. There are at least as many glial cells present, as well as microglia, none of which are visible in the image. At this point, cerebral organoids typically contain few astrocytes and oligodendrocytes, no vasculature, and no microglia. Moreover, they grow to be about 1 to 3 mm in diameter over the course of 6 to 9 months; that is significantly smaller in volume than a fetal or newborn’s brain. While cerebral organoids can generate structures characteristic of retinal pigment epithelia (top figure) and photo-responsive neurons (18), such as those associated with the retina, an extension of the brain, it is not at all clear that there is any significant sensory input into the neuronal networks that are formed within a cerebral organoid, or any significant outputs, at least compared to the role that the human brain plays in controlling bodily and mental functions.

The reasonable question, then, must be whether a  cerebral organoid, which is a relatively simple system of cells (although itself complex), is conscious. It becomes more reasonable as increasingly complex systems are developed, and such work is proceeding apace. Already researchers are manipulating the developing organoid’s environment to facilitate axis formation, and one can anticipate the introduction of vasculature. Indeed, the generation of microglia-like cells from iPSCs has been reported; such cells can be incorporated into cerebral organoids where they appear to respond to neuronal damage in much the same way as microglia behave in intact neural tissue (19).

We can ask ourselves, what would convince us that a cerebral organoid, living within a laboratory incubator, was conscious? How would such consciousness manifest itself? Through some specific pattern of neural activity, perhaps?  As a biologist, albeit one primarily interested in molecular and cellular systems, I discount the idea, proposed by some physicists and philosophers as well as the more mystical, that consciousness is a universal property of matter (20,21).  I take consciousness to be an emergent property of complex neural systems, generated by evolutionary mechanisms, built during embryonic and subsequent development, and influenced by social interactions (BLOG LINK) using information encoded within the human genome (something similar to this: A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved). While a future concern, in a world full of more immediate and pressing issues, it will be interesting to listen to the academic, social, and political debate on what to do with mini-brains as they grow in complexity and perhaps inevitably, towards consciousness.

 

Footnotes and references

Thanks to Rebecca Klymkowsky, Esq. and Joshua Sanes, Ph.D. for editing and disciplinary support.

  1. Gene regulation and the origins of human biological uniqueness
  2.  See also Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits
  3. The mouse trap
  4. Mice Fall Short as Test Subjects for Some of Humans’ Deadly Ill
  5. The status of the human embryo in various religions
  6. Interactions between Nodal and Wnt signalling Drive Robust Symmetry Breaking and Axial Organisation in Gastruloids (Embryonic Organoids)
  7.  Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors
  8.  How iPS cells changed the world
  9.  Generation of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells from Urine
  10. Urine-derived induced pluripotent stem cells as a modeling tool to study rare human diseases
  11. Cerebral organoids model human brain development and microcephaly.
  12. Human iPSC-Derived Cerebral Organoids Model Cellular Features of Lissencephaly and Reveal Prolonged Mitosis of Outer Radial Glia
  13. Using brain organoids to understand Zika virus-induced microcephaly
  14. Probing Down Syndrome with Mini Brains
  15. As an example, see The Beauty of “Mini Brains”
  16. Derived from Central nervous system pericytes in health and disease
  17. Golgi’s method .
  18. Cell diversity and network dynamics in photosensitive human brain organoids
  19. Efficient derivation of microglia-like cells from human pluripotent stem cells
  20. The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics – BBC:
  21. Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness?

From the Science March to the Classroom: Recognizing science in politics and politics in science

Jeanne Garbarino (with edits by Mike Klymkowsky)

Purely scientific discussions are hallmarked by objective, open, logical, and skeptical thought; they can describe and explain natural phenomena or provide insights into a broader questions. At the same time, scientific discussions are generally incomplete and tentative (sometimes for well understood reasons). True advocates of the scientific method appreciate the value of its skeptical and tentative approach, and are willing to revise even long-held positions in response to new, empirically-derived evidence or logical contradictions. Over time, science’s scope and conclusions have expanded and evolved dramatically; they provide an increasingly accurate working model of a wide range of processes, from the formation of the universe to the functioning of the human mind. The result is that the ubiquity of science’s impacts on society are clear and growing. However, discussing and debating the details of how science works, and the current consensus view on various phenomena, such as global warming or the causes of cancer or autism, is very different from discussing and debating how a scientific recommendation fits into a societal framework. As described in a recent National Academies Press report on Communicating Science Effectively  [link], “the decision to communicate science [outside of academia] always involves an ethical component. Choices about what scientific evidence to communicate and when, how, and to whom, are a reflection of values.”

Over the last ~150 years, the accelerating pace of advances in science and technology have enabled future sustainable development, but they have also disrupted traditional social and economic patterns. Closing coal mines in response to climate predictions (and government regulations) may be sensible when viewed broadly, but are disruptive to those who have, for generations, made a living mining coal. Similarly, a number of prognosticators have speculated on the impact of robotics and artificial intelligence on traditional socioeconomic roles and rules. Whether such impacts are worth the human costs is rarely explicitly considered and discussed in the public forum, or the classroom. As members of the scientific community, our educational and outreach efforts must go beyond simply promoting an appreciation of, and public support for science. They must also consider its limitations, as well as the potential ethical and disruptive effects on individuals, communities, and/or societies. Making policy decisions with large socioeconomic impacts based on often tentative models raises risks of alienating the public upon which modern science largely depends.

Citizens, experts or not, are often invited to contribute to debates and discussions surrounding science and technology at the local and national levels. Yet, many people are not provided with the tools to fully and effectively engage in these discussions, which involves critically analyzing the scope, resolution, and stability of scientific conclusions. As such, the acceptance or rejection of scientific pronouncements is often framed as an instrument of political power, casting a shadow on core scientific principles and processes, framing scientists as partisan players in a political game. The watering down of the role of science and science-based policies in the public sphere, and the broad public complacency associated with (often government-based, regulatory) efforts, is currently being challenged by the international March For Science effort. The core principles and goals of this initiative [link] are well articulated, and, to my mind, representative of a democratic society. However, a single march on a single day is not sufficient to promote a deep social transformation, and promote widespread dispassionate argumentation and critical thinking. Perspectives on how scientific knowledge can help shape current and future events, as well as the importance of recognizing both the implications and limits of science, are perspectives that must be taught early, often, and explicitly. Social or moral decisions are not mutually exclusive from scientific evidence or ideas, but overlap is constrained by the gates set by values that are held.

In this light, I strongly believe the sociopolitical nature of science in practice must be taught alongside traditional science content. Understanding the human, social, economic and broader (ecological) costs of action AND inaction can be used to highlight the importance of framing science in a human context. If the expectation is for members of our society to be able to evaluate and weigh in on scientific debates at all levels, I believe we are morally obligated to supply future generations with the tools required for full participation. This posits that scientists and science educators, together with historian, philosophers, and economists, etc., need to go beyond the teaching of simple facts and theories by considering how these facts and theories developed over time, their impact on people’s thinking, as well as the socioeconomic forces that shape societies. Highlighting the sociopolitical implications of science-based ideas in classrooms can also motivate students to take a greater interest in scientific learning in particular, and related social and political topics in general. It can help close the gap between what is learned in school and what is required for the critical evaluation of scientific applications in society, and how scientific ideas can and should be evaluated when it comes to social policy or person beliefs.

A “science in a social context” approach to science teaching may also address the common student question, “When will I ever use this?” All too often, scientific content in schools is presented in ways that are abstract, decontextualized, and can feel irrelevant to students. Such an approach can leave a student unable or unwilling to engage in meaningful and substantive discussions on the applications and limitations of science in society. The entire concept of including cost-benefit analyses when considering the role of science in shaping decisions is often over-looked, as if scientific conclusions are black and white. Furthermore, the current culture of science in classrooms leaves little room for students to assess how scientific information does and does not align with their cultural identities, often framing science as inherently conflicting or alien, forcing a choice between one way of seeing the world over the other, when a creative synthesis seems more reasonable. Shifting science education paradigms toward a strategy that promotes “education through science” (as opposed to “science through education”) recognizes student needs and motivations as critical to learning, and opens up channels for introducing science as something that is relevant and enriching to their lives. Centered on the German philosophy of Allgemeinbildung [link] that describes “the competence for participation in critical dialogue on currently important matters,” this approach has been found to be effective in motivating students to develop the necessary skills to implement empirical evidence when forming arguments and making decisions.

In extending the idea of the perceived value of science in sociopolitical debates, students can build important frameworks for effectively engaging with society in the future. A relevant example is the increasing accessibility of genome editing technology, which represents an area of science poised to deeply impact the future of society. In a recent report [link] on the ethics of genome editing, assembled by an panel of clinicians and scientists (experts), it is recommended that the United States should proceed — cautiously — with genome editing studies on human embryos. However, as pointed out [link], this panel failed to include ANY public participation in this decision. This effort, fundamentally ignores “a more conscious evaluation of how this impacts social standing, stigma and identity, ethics that scientists often tend to cite pro forma and then swiftly scuttle.” As this discussion increasingly shifts into the mainstream, it will be essential to engage with the public in ways that promote a more careful and thoughtful analysis of scientific issues [link], as opposed to hyperbolic fear mongering (as seen in regard to most GMO discussions)[link] or reserving genetic engineering to the hyper-affluent. Another, more timely example, involves the the level at which an individual’s genome be used to predict a future outcome or set of outcomes, and whether this information can be used by employers in any capacity [link]. By incorporating a clear description of how science is practiced (including the factors that influence what is studied, and what is done with the knowledge generated), alongside the transfer of traditional scientific knowledge, we can help provide future citizens with tools for critical evaluation as they navigate these uncharted waters.

It is also worth noting tcorrupted sciencehat the presentation of science in a sociopolitical contexts can emphasize learning of more than just science. Current approaches to education tend to compartmentalize academic subjects, framing them as standalone lessons and philosophies. Students go through the school day motions, attending English class, then biology, then social studies, then trigonometry, etc., and the natural connections among subject areas are often lost. When framing scientific topics in the context of sociopolitical discussions and debates, stu
dents have more opportunities to explore aspects of society that are, at face value, unrelated to science.

Drawing from lessons commonly taught in American History class, the Manhattan Project [link] offers an excellent opportunity to discuss the fundamentals of nuclear chemistry as well as sociopolitical implications of a scientific discovery. At face value, harnessing nuclear fission marked a dramatic milestone for science. However, when this technology was pursued by the United States government during World War II — at the urging of the famed physicist Albert Einstein and others — it opened up the possibility of an entirely new category of warfare, impacting individuals and communities at all levels. The reactions set off by the Manhattan Project, and the consequent 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are ones that are still felt in international power politics, agriculture, medicine, ecology, economics, research ethics, transparency in government, and, of course, the Presidency of the United States. The Manhattan Project represents an excellent case study on the relationship between science, technology, and society, as well as the project’s ongoing influence on these relationships. The double-edged nature often associated with scientific discoveries are important considerations of the scientific enterprise, and should be taught to students accordingly.

A more meaningful approach to science education requires including the social aspects of the scientific enterprise. When considering a heliocentric view of the solar system, it is worthwhile recognizing its social impacts as well as its scientific foundations (particularly before Kepler). If we want people to see science as a human enterprise that can inspire rather than dictate decisions and behaviors, it will require resifting how science — and scientists — are viewed in the public eye. As written here [link]. we need to restore the relationship between scientific knowledge and social goals by specifically recognizing how

'So... cutting my funding, eh? Well, I've got a pair of mutant fists that say otherwise!'
‘So… cutting my funding, eh? Well, I’ve got a pair of mutant fists that say otherwise!’

science can be used, inappropriately, to drive public opinion. As an example, in the context of CO2-driven global warming, one could (with equal scientific validity) seek to reduce CO2 generation or increase CO2 sequestration. Science does not tell us which is better from a human perspective (although it could tell us which is likely to be easier, technically). While science should inform relevant policy, we must also acknowledge the limits of science and how it fits into many human contexts. There is clearly a need for scientists to increase participation in public discourse, and explicitly consider the uncertainties and risks (social, economic, political) associated with scientific observations. Additionally, scientists need to recognize the limits of their own expertise.

A pertinent example was the call by Paul Ehrlich to limit, in various draconian ways, human reproduction – a political call well beyond his expertise. In fact, recognizing when someone has gone beyond what science can legitimately tell us [link] could help rebuild respect for the value of science-based evidence. Scientists and science educators need to be cognizant of these limits, and genuinely listen to the valid concerns and hesitations held by many in society, rather than dismiss them. The application of science has been, and will always be, a sociopolitical issue, and the more we can do to prepare future decision makers, the better society will be.

Jeanne Garbarino, PhD, Director of Science Outreach, The Rockefeller University, NY, NY

Jeanne earned herJGarbarino Ph.D. in metabolic biology from Columbia University, followed by a postdoc in the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at The Rockefeller University, where she now serves as Director of Science Outreach. In this role, she works to provide K-12 communities with equitable access to authentic biomedical research opportunities and resources. You can find Jeanne on social media under the handle @JeanneGarb.

Power Posing & Science Education

Developing a coherent understanding of a scientific idea is neither trivial nor easy and it is counter-productive to pretend that it is.

For some time now the idea of “active learning” (as if there is any other kind) has become a mantra in the science education community (see Active Learning Day in America: link). Yet the situation is demonstrably more complex, and depends upon what exactly is to be learned, something rarely stated explicitly in many published papers on active learning (an exception can be found here with respect to understanding evolutionary mechanisms : link).  The best of such work generally relies on results from multiple-choice “concept tests” that  provide, at best, a limited (low resolution) characterization of what students know. Moreover it is clear that, much like in other areas, research into the impact of active learning strategies is rarely reproduced (see: link, link & link).

As is clear from the level of aberrant and non-sensical talk about the implications of “science” currently on display in both public and private spheres (link : link), the task of effective science education and rigorous scientific (data-based) decision making is not a simple one.  As noted by many there is little about modern science that is intuitively obvious and most is deeply counterintuitive or actively disconcerting (see link).  In the absence of a firm religious or philosophical perspective, scientific conclusions about the size and age of the Universe, the various processes driving evolution, and the often grotesque outcomes they canthey tried to teach produce can be deeply troubling; one can easily embrace a solipsistic, ego-centric and/or fatalistic belief/behavioral system.

There are two videos of Richard Feynman that capture much of what is involved in, and required for understanding a scientific idea and its implications. The first involves the basis scientific process, where the path to a scientific understanding of a phenomena begins with a guess, but these are a special kind of guess, namely a guess that implies unambiguous (and often quantitative) predictions of what future (or retrospective) observations will reveal (video: link).  This scientific discipline (link) implies the willingness to accept that scientifically-meaningful ideas need to have explicit, definable, and observable implications, while those that do not are non-scientific and need to be discarded. As witness the stubborn adherence to demonstrably untrue ideas (such as where past Presidents were born or how many people attended an event or voted legally), which mark superstitious and non-scientific worldviews.  Embracing a scientific perspective is not easy, nor is letting go of a favorite idea (or prejudice).  The difficulty of thinking and acting scientifically needs to be kept in the mind of instructors; it is one of the reasons that peer review continues to be important – it reminds us that we are part of a community committed to the rules of scientific inquiry and its empirical foundations and that we are accountable to that community.

The second Feynman video (video : link) captures his description of what it means to understand a particular phenomenon scientifically, in this particular case, why magnets attract one another.  The take home message is that many (perhaps most) scientific ideas require a substantial amount of well-understood background information before one can even begin a scientifically meaningful consideration of the topic. Yet all too often such background information is not considered by those who develop (and deliver) courses and curricula. To use an example from my own work (in collaboration with Melanie Cooper @MSU), it is very rare to find course and curricular materials (textbooks and such) that explicitly recognize (or illustrate) the underlying assumptions involved in a scientific explanation.  Often the “central dogma” of molecular biology is taught as if it were simply a description of molecular processes, rather than explicitly recognizing that information flows from DNA outward (link)(and into DNA through mutation and selection).  Similarly it is rare to see stated explicitly that random collisions with other molecules supply the energy needed for chemical reactions to proceed or to break intermolecular interactions, or that the energy released upon complex formation is transferred to other molecules in the system (see : link), even though these events control essentially all aspects of the systems active in organisms, from gene expression to consciousness.

The basic conclusion is that achieving a working understanding of a scientific ideas is hard, and that, while it requires an engaging and challenging teacher and a supportive and interactive community, it is also critical that students be presented with conceptually coherent content that acknowledges and presents all of the ideas needed to actually understand the concepts and observations upon which a scientific understanding is based (see “now for the hard part” :  link).  Bottom line, there is no simple or painless path to understanding science – it involves a serious commitment on the part of the course designer as well as the student, the instructor, and the institution (see : link).

This brings us back to the popularity of the “active learning” movement, which all too often ignores course content and the establishment of meaningful learning outcomes.  Why then has it attracted such attention?  My own guess it that is provides a simple solution that circumvents the need for instructors (and course designers) to significantly modify the materials that they present to students.  The current system rarely rewards or provides incentives for faculty to carefully consider the content that they are presenting to students, asking whether it is relevant or sufficient for students’ to achieve a working understanding of the subject presented, an understanding that enables the student to accurately interpret and then generate reasoned and evidence-based (plausible) responses.

Such a reflective reconsideration of a topic will often result in dramatic changes in course (and curricular) emphasis; traditional materials may be omitted or relegated to more specialized courses.  Such changes can provoke a negative response from other faculty, based of often inherited (an uncritically accepted) ideas about course “coverage”, as opposed to desired and realistic student learning outcomes.  Given the resistance of science faculty (particularly at institutions devoted to scientific research) to investing time in educational projects (often a reasonable strategy, given institutional reward systems), there is a seductive lure to easy fixes. One such fix is to leave the content unaltered and to “adopt a pose” in the classroom.

All of which brings me to the main problem – the frequency with which superficial (low cost, but often ineffectual) strategies can act to inhibit and distract from significant, but difficult reforms.  One cannot help but be reminded of other quick fixes for complex problems.  The most recent being the idea, promulgated by Amy Cuddy (Harvard: link) and others, that adopting a “power pose” can overcome various forms of experienced- and socioeconomic-based prejudices and injustices, as if over-coming a person’sexperiences and situAbsurdities-Voltaireation is simply a matter of will. The message is that those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame, because the way to succeed is (basically) so damn simple.  So imagine one’s surprise (or not) when one discovers that the underlying biological claims associated with “power posing” are not true (or at least cannot be replicated, even by the co-authors of the original work (see Power Poser: When big ideas go bad: link).  Seems as if the lesson that needs to be learned, both in science education and more generally, is that claims that seem too easy or universal are unlikely to be true.  It is worth remembering that even the most effective modern (and traditional) medicines, all have potentially dangerous side effects. Why, because they lead to significant changes to the system and such modifications can discomfort the comfortable. This stands in stark contrast to non-scientific approaches; homeopathic “remedies” come to mind, which rely on placebo effects (which is not to say that taking ineffective remedies does not itself  involve risks.)

As in the case of effective medical treatments, the development and delivery of engaging and meaningful science education reform often requires challenging current assumptions and strategies that are often based in outdated traditions, and are influenced more by the constraints of class size and the logistics of testing than they are by the importance of achieving demonstrable enhancements of students’ working understanding of complex ideas.

How Universities Can Help STEM Students Succeed

Photo by John Phelan

 

Across the country, millions of students will be filling the lecture halls of introductory science and engineering courses, many of them eager to declare majors in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM). However, if the national average holds true, come graduation, 40 percent of the initial hopefuls will have failed to follow through with their STEM majors.

 

As a recent biology graduate, I have seen a fair number of my high school and college peers give up their STEM majors after a series of disappointing grades. While they may have been honor students in high school, excelling in college science courses is no easy feat. First of all, by definition, half of all students, including many former honor students, will score below the median. For many, the assigned coursework may vex them for the first time in their lives, the shock of which may impel them to abandon their STEM majors. Furthermore, compared with more advanced courses, the enrollment in introductory courses in STEM are often huge, meaning that students are most likely to slip through the cracks at the very onset of their STEM trajectory.

 

Studying science at a college level requires both understanding and application; rote memorization, while richly rewarded in AP, IB and SAT II subject tests, is not enough. Adapting to a college science course requires students to devise new methods of approaching and internalizing the course material in a short period of time.

 

And while many students view college as a fresh start, academic advantages from high school will carry over. The honors student from elite prep school or the public magnet will probably have a head start over the student from the inner city. Students who have taken honors, IB or AP biology chemistry, physics or calculus will have the edge over those who are completely new to the material. The students who have performed research during high school will have a better understanding of how to excel in lab sections. Considering that upper-level science courses build upon concepts taught in introductory courses, a solid foundation of the fundamentals is critical for future success. A shaky foundation may thus derail a student’s path to completing a STEM major.

 

While there is no easy fix, universities themselves could do their part in leveling the playing field to incentivize more STEM graduates. First, universities should even the grading disparity between STEM and non-STEM courses that encourages students to abandon science majors.

 

Furthermore, major departments that have mandatory introductory courses could consider making these classes pass/fail for all enrolled students to allow for a period of academic and social adjustment for new students. For instance, STEM-focused universities such as the California Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology require incoming freshmen to take all of their courses on a pass/fail basis for the first one or two terms, enabling students to understand the academic expectations of their institutions and focus on improving their study methods with minimal stress.

 

Most importantly, however, colleges and STEM departments should focus on preparing individual students before courses even begin. For instance, universities could offer prospective science majors a crash course or seminars on basic study methods and time management methods, so that students will not be caught unaware. STEM departments could also arrange formal or informal peer mentorships between incoming students and upperclassmen who have passed through the academic hoops to create a lasting support structure within the major itself.

 

Science skills are crucial to our future as a society and as a nation. The responsibility to meet many of the biggest challenges of our century will rest on the shoulders of our scientists. And yet, every year millions of students give up studying science. Considering that not all high school graduates are equal, college is the place to make science courses more accessible for more potential STEM graduates.

 

A version of the article was previously published in The Dartmouth

 

tiny book

 

Check out my new book aimed at helping college students excel in science, What Every Science Student Should Know (University of Chicago Press)

Judging science fairs: 10/10 Privilege, 0/10 Ability

Every year, I make a point of rounding up students in my department and encouraging them to volunteer one evening judging our local science fair. This year, the fair was held at the start of April, and featured over 200 judges and hundreds of projects from young scientists in grades 5 through to 12, with the winners going on to the National Championships.

President Obama welcomes some young scientists to the White House | Photo via USDAGov
President Obama welcomes some young scientists to the White House | Photo via USDAGov

Perhaps the most rewarding part of volunteering your time, and the reason why I encourage colleagues to participate is when you see just how excited the youth are for their projects. It doesn’t matter what the project is, most of the students are thrilled to be there. Add to that how A Real Life Scientist (TM) wants to talk to them about their project? It’s a highlight for many of the students. As a graduate student, the desire to do science for science’s sake is something that gets drilled out of you quickly as you follow the Williams Sonoma/Jamie Oliver Chemistry 101 Cookbook, where you add 50 g Chemical A to 50 of Chemical B and record what colour the mixture turns. Being around  excitement based purely on the pursuit of science is refreshing.

However, the aspect of judging science fairs that I struggle most with is how to deal with the wide range of projects. How do you judge two projects on the same criteria where one used university resources (labs, mass spectrometers, centrifuges etc) and the other looked at how high balls bounce when you drop them. It becomes incredibly difficult as a judge to remain objective when one project is closer in scope to an undergraduate research project and the other is more your typical kitchen cabinet/garage equipment project. Even within two students who do the same project, there is variability depending on whether or not they have someone who can help them at home, or access to facilities through their school or parents social network.

As the title suggests, this is an issue of privilege. Having people at home who can help, either directly by providing guidance and helping do the project, or indirectly by providing access to resources, gives these kids a huge leg up over their peers. As Erin pointed out in her piece last year:

A 2009 study of the Canada-Wide Science Fair found that found that fair participants were elite not just in their understanding of science, but in their finances and social network. The study looked at participants and winners from the 2002-2008 Fairs, and found that the students were more likely to come from advantaged middle to upper class families and had access to equipment in universities or laboratories through their social connections (emphasis mine).

So the youth who are getting to these fairs are definitely qualified to be there – they know the project, and they understand the scientific method. They’re explaining advanced concepts clearly and understand the material. The problem becomes how does one objectively deal with this? You can’t punish the student because they used the resources available to them, especially if they show mastery of the concepts. But can you really evaluate them on the same stage and using the same criteria as their peers without access to those resources, especially when part of the criteria includes the scientific merit of the project?

The fair, to their credit, took a very proactive approach to this concern, which was especially prudent given the makeup of this area where some kids have opportunities and others simply don’t. Their advice was to judge the projects independently, and judge the kids on the strength of their presentation and understanding. But again, there’s an element of privilege behind this. The kids who have parents and mentors who can coach them and prepare them for how to answer questions, or even just give them an opportunity/push them to practice their talk, will obviously do better.

The science fair acts as a microcosm for our entire academic system, from undergrad into graduate and professional school and into later careers. The students who can afford to volunteer in labs over the summer during undergrad are more likely to make it into highly competitive graduate programs as they have “relevant experience,” while their peers who have to work minimum wage positions to pay tuition or student loans are going to be left behind. The system is structured to reward privilege – when was the last time an undergrad or graduate scholarship considered “work history” as opposed to “relevant work experience?” Most ask for a resume or curriculum vitae, where one could theoretically include that experience, but if the ranking criteria look for “relevant” work experience, which working at Starbucks doesn’t include, how do those students compete for the same scholarships? This is despite how working any job does help you develop various transferable skills including time management and conflict resolution. And that doesn’t even begin to consider the negative stigma many professors hold for this type of employment.

The question thus is: Are we okay with this? Are we okay with a system where, based purely on luck, some kids are given opportunities, while others aren’t? And if not, how do we start tackling it?

 

 

========================================

Disclaimer: I’ve focused on economic privilege here, but privilege comes in many different forms. I’m not going to wade into the other forms, but for some excellent reads, take a read of this, this and this.