EDUCATION
Chemists, Biologists Seek Better Relations Chronic problems with undergraduate chemistry education emerged as one of the central issues at a Washington, D.C., conference earlier this month aimed at seeking ways to improve relations between the chemical and biological sciences. Hosted by American Chemical Society president S. Allen Heininger, the gathering of about 40 educators from both disciplines addressed the question of how best to train future scientists so that they can fully exploit advances in chemistry, molecular biology, and biotechnology. As Heininger explained in the conference program, "With the critical role of chemistry in biomedical research, the education of future generations of chemists must be broadened to encompass an understanding of biological processes if they are to contribute to steady progress in elucidating the chemistry of living systems. Likewise, the crucial role of chemistry in contemporary molecular biology needs to be fully integrated with the education of biologists." Consensus was much harder to come by on solutions than it was on the problems. That chemists and biologists speak different scientific languages was noted. Also, considerable emphasis was put on the intensely political nature of the "turf" battles that inevitably accompany proposed educational reforms, especially those involving more than
one department at an academic institution. There was general acknowledgment that any reforms will come only with the investment of a lot of time and effort. They will need strong leadership and, if they are to last, broad acceptance and support. However, the concept of a series of summer workshops at which chemists and biologists from the same institutions would seek increased cooperation and mutual support and, perhaps, develop supplementary teaching materials for each other's courses was generally well received at the conference. And a need to revitalize undergraduate chemistry programs, especially with meaningful research programs, was accepted almost as a given for reasons that extended well beyond improving the chemistry-biology interface. Lead speaker at the conference, Nobel Laureate Paul Berg of Stanford University, stated that with biologists trying to understand their science at the molecular level and chemists being involved with the structure and function of biological macromolecules, the boundary between chemistry and biology is today "clearly indistinct." He explained that many of his graduate students express dissatis-
Breslow (left): put biological relevance into chemistry. Heininger: show crucial role of chemistry in biology
faction with their undergraduate education in chemistry. He believes such an education fails to provide a sense of chemistry as a modern science and it gives little indication of either the excitement or the relevance of chemical advances. Berg believes an ideal freshman science course would be an interdepartmental affair. It would combine elements of biology, chemistry, and physics and would be structured around current and exciting topics. He outlined two experimental programs at Stanford. One, which has been well received, is a biochemistry course open to chemistry, biology, and other students. It involves each student in three or more minicourses chosen from a list of about eight. Each of these is taught by a different faculty member. The other program is a two-part lab course in which students design their own experiments around a central topic, such as enzymes. Columbia University chemistry professor Ronald Breslow stressed that freshman chemistry courses should be less of a weeding out and turning off process than they tend to be today. He also advocates more biological relevance in undergraduate chemistry, including a required biochemistry course as well as more biochemical examples in chemistry courses. He also mentioned the need to develop biologically related enrichment materials for chemistry teachers. Bruce M. Alberts, professor of biochemistry at the University of California, San Francisco, said there is a need for more and better chemistry instruction for undergraduate biochemistry and biology students. He explains that the chemistry taught to such students hasn't changed in decades—a period of enormous change for biology. Hence, many promising biochemistry graduate students develop a strong distaste for chemistry—something that can handicap them in their research efforts. Alberts also makes the point that October 28, 1991 C&EN
23
Education organic chemistry courses have not changed in 30 years and that they turn students away from a real inter est in chemistry. He believes these courses are largely a matter of mem orizing a mass of largely irrelevant material. He also claims such courses have a very low biological content because few organic chemistry teach ers have had a course in biochemis try. According to Alberts, the first se mester of freshman biochemistry should be a slow introduction to the topic, largely inorganic in subject matter, and designed not to discour age s t u d e n t s . Second s e m e s t e r would cover organic chemistry. The second year should have a biochem ical emphasis and the usual labs should be revamped to use a more combined and creative approach. California Institute of Technology chemistry professor Harry Gray picked up on the theme of the con servatism of chemistry education. He claims the four-year undergradu
ate program has not changed in 50 years with general chemistry in the first year, organic chemistry "dug i n " and dominant in the second year, physical chemistry strong in the third year, and little room for ei ther inorganic chemistry or bio chemistry. He claims a more mean ingful division of chemistry today would be chemical biology, synthe sis, theory, and chemical physics. Concern that freshman chemistry courses are deflecting too many bright students from careers in sci ence pervaded much of the discus sion. This is perceived as a particu larly serious issue for chemistry de partments at large state universities with their enormous student loads. However, Paul G. Gassman, profes sor of chemistry at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out that the key role of the truly in spirational teacher should never be overlooked. He believes the way in which chemistry is taught is more important than content.
From the industrial perspective, Burton G. Christensen, senior vice president of Merck, Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories, said n e w chemistry graduates do not have a balanced view of biological process es. But he indicated those who seek careers in industry find the multidisciplinary approach often used there appealing. Ethel Jackson, a biologist repre senting Du Pont at the conference, p o i n t e d out that biological ap proaches offer the possibility of making both new products and old products in more environmentally friendly ways. Such approaches also offer potential for cleaning up pol lution problems. Heininger agreed. He said what he called the 20th cen tury sledge hammer approach to chemical manufacturing will even tually turn toward more natural pro cesses. But it will be a slow process, especially for large-volume com modity products. Michael Heylin
Need Information on the Chemical Industry·ί Call the CAS Search Service® If you're not currently searching online or you have an emergency information need...just ask the ques tion, and our experts will find the answer! You'll discover how easy it is to receive • Information for your Premanufacture Notices • Business information on the chemical industry • CAS Registry Numbers® to identify 11,000,000 substances • Patent information-validity, prior art, families or equivalents in other countries • Or any other information you need from hundreds of online databases worldwide!
24
October 28, 1991 C&EN
We're fast, we're thorough, and we're here to help you. Mention this ad when you contact Don Stickel at 800848-6538, ext. 3707; FAX 614-447-3713; or write: CAS Search Service, Chemical Abstracts Service, Marketing, Dept. 48891, P.O. Box 3012, Columbus, Ohio 432100012 U.S.A.
CDS
CAS SEARCH SERVICE
