In the Classroom
Challenges of Trainees in a Multidisciplinary Research Program: Nano-Biotechnology by Christina Kriegel† Department of Food Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst Massachusetts 01003, United States by Jessica Koehne Department of Chemistry, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035, United States by Sally Tinkle National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-2233, United States by Andrew D. Maynard Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Director, Risk Science Center, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, United States by Rodney A. Hill* Department of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844-2330, United States *
[email protected]. †Current address: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States.
The breadth of knowledge required for the multidisciplinary field of nanotechnology challenges and extends traditional concepts of multidisciplinary graduate education. The essential interactions between engineers, chemists, physicists, material scientists, computational scientists, and biologists are affecting diverse applications from food packaging to medicine and producing new engineered nanomaterials and nano-enabled products. Rich, new connections between disciplines are being supported as consortia are assembled to solve critical, complex problems for which nanotechnology provides solutions. The need to integrate changes in graduate education in parallel with these consortia approaches to problem solving in science and engineering is widely recognized (1-5). However, there is a paucity of information, both general reporting and peer-reviewed studies, on the effects of this changing paradigm on graduate education, from the students' perspectives. Bringing graduate student's perspectives forward is not a novel idea. The potential for graduate students to inform critical change in graduate education has been recognized by other authors as they “can bring staggering imagination and energy to bear” (6). The Pew Charitable Trust funded one of the most comprehensive studies that included student perspectives on changing graduate education in 2000 (7) and called for changes to doctoral student education. The student call for change documented a desire for more concrete exposure to varied options in multiple contexts in which to apply their knowledge and skills, for a training program to be based on a multiple-mentor model, and for including teaching and curriculum concerns in career planning. Students also desired more practical ways to understand and to situate their education and training within the context of the global economy.
_
The senior coauthors collaborating on this article asked two questions: Has the era of the multidisciplinary paradigm made advances in the ways we educate graduates especially in nanobioscience? and What can we learn from graduate students who are being educated in multidisciplinary models of graduate education? To gain some insight into these questions, the senior coauthors invited two young scientists to reflect on these questions; one who is presently enrolled in multidisciplinary nanotechnology Ph.D. program (J.K.) and the other just recently graduated and now conducting postdoctoral studies at another university (C.K.). Both students presented their perspectives as part of a national meeting symposium (8, 9). We briefly review the two different training models under which each student was trained and include the students' perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of each model. We also provide comments from the broader views of the senior coauthors. The two instruction models are (i) the core academic department that has expanded student choice by allowing additional classes to be taken from outside the core department and (ii) multiple departments working together to provide choice and diversity across the curriculum. The policies and goals set forth by the institution have large effects on the educational environment of the academic departments and thus on the faculty and students within those departments. Many would argue that it is the academic department that is at the core of the exchange of ideas in which new knowledge is forged and transformed in the interactions between faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral trainees (6). Thus, we focus upon this unit as the source of conditions that permit individual risk-taking, creativity, and entrepreneurship. In addition, we must recognize that the new paradigm is very much
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 88 No. 1 January 2011 10.1021/ed1001174 Published on Web 10/25/2010
_
Journal of Chemical Education
53
In the Classroom
about these intellectual focus units working across boundaries and a growing commitment to teamwork that has the potential to facilitate not only broaching trans-departmental barriers, but also reaching beyond academe to connect with the larger social context (10). Multidisciplinary Training Models The Department of Chemistry at UC, Davis offers curriculum tracks that reflect a student's focus within a scientific discipline, that is, physical, analytical, inorganic, organic, or biochemistry. Students may select elective courses from outside the chemistry department to broaden their scientific knowledge base, but chemistry remains the core focus. In contrast to the strict core department training in chemistry at UC, Davis, the Department of Food Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has established a multidepartment core faculty that provides flexibility to its students through selection of program electives from participating departments. Training in food science is inherently multidisciplinary as it encompasses the study of the chemical, biological, and physical nature of food in terms of quality, safety, and nutrition, and the application of science and engineering to the processing and storage and use of food and food-related products. Students have one advisor or, in special cases, are co-advised by two professors and are required to take at least six credits outside of the food science department. They are free to choose the department and type of course, as long as it is in a field directly related to food science or the student's thesis research. In addition to differences in course curriculum, both multidisciplinary training approaches present advantages and disadvantages to the students. Multidisciplinary Education Begins at Multidisciplinary Centers, Institutes, and Facilities The traditional university organizational structure does not easily accommodate multidisciplinary research. Administrative autonomy of academic departments and colleges, competition among various departments for contracts and grant submission, and a disconnect between research and teaching challenge multidisciplinary research endeavors. U.S. universities and national funding mechanisms have begun supporting the development of multidisciplinary centers and institutes (11) through formation of core laboratory facilities open to all members of that academic institution. In addition to providing laboratory equipment that may be required for a student's thesis research, these centers offer a common place for students to interact with graduate students and postdoctoral researchers from other departments. These facilities become the cornerstone for multidisciplinary research at many universities. Because the dialogue that begins in these centers and institutes is crucial to the development of a multidisciplinary scientist, these multidisciplinary centers and institutes are among the most beneficial organizational structures to encourage and support multidisciplinary research. Multidisciplinary Education Is Having an Impact on Training and the Future of Graduate Students There is a wide range of positive outcomes that influence the graduate student's choice to pursue a multidisciplinary thesis both in the diverse training as well as the appeal to the future job market (12). Students with this type of research experience 54
Journal of Chemical Education
_
Vol. 88 No. 1 January 2011
_
acquire a large variety of skills and necessary information, techniques, tools, perspectives, and concepts to tackle the scientific challenges that will dominate the 21st century. These are the researchers who have found a way to incorporate and create a depth of knowledge with breadth of interests, ideas, and expertise to overcome barriers such as attitudinal resistance, communication problems, differing research methods, and cultures of different disciplines. It is not surprising that networking across disciplines, whether they are science- or nonscience-based, in this type of training program occurs, facilitating the flow and exchange of creative, scientific ideas. However, a multidisciplinary thesis presents drawbacks for the graduate student. Those participating in multidisciplinary research often take more courses offered in multiple departments compared to other graduate students. Because of the increased coursework necessary for a broad scientific foundation, a multidisciplinary thesis may take longer to complete. Furthermore, multidisciplinary research challenges the student to acquire both an essential depth as well as breadth of knowledge in the wide variety of disciplines that underlie their project. Additionally, the student could be pulled in different directions, especially by faculty collaborators some of whom may have less-developed communication skills, a circumstance that may lead either to compromised understanding of a focus area or being intellectually stretched beyond the accepted academic norms. Multidisciplinary training also challenges potential employers who may find a multidisciplinary background too broad or with insufficient depth in the area of interest. Other barriers include a lack of acceptance and effective outlets for publication and distribution of multidisciplinary research results. Furthermore, because universities are only slowly changing their infrastructure, the academic tenure system is often not prepared for the next generation of multidisciplinary faculty. The Junior Authors Present These Recommendations for the Future of Graduate Education As a multidisciplinary educational structure is consistent with emerging areas of research and development and can substantially enhance a university's reputation and profitability, we highly encourage university administrators to generate and support multidisciplinary departments and develop mechanisms to promote faculty participation. There is great potential for return on investment. For example, the overall national investment in nanotechnology has increased from $464 million in 2001 to $1.6 billion in 2010 (13). In addition, it is advisable for core departments to foster faculty participation in multidisciplinary departments and programs. Institutions and departments should provide more multidisciplinary groups, centers, and institutes and encourage networking through broad collaboration. Graduate and postdoctoral fellowships for multidisciplinary research should be created to draw future students into the program. Academic departments should create a more flexible curriculum allowing their students to participate in more courses outside the department, necessary for a multidisciplinary thesis. However, academic departments must also be wary not to compromise the student's depth of disciplinary knowledge for a sufficient breadth of knowledge. These training programs will create scientific leaders of tomorrow who will find new ways to tackle the problems that can only be solved through a multidisciplinary effort. Pursuit of a multidisciplinary graduate
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
In the Classroom
education is not an easy task; however, we believe this is the future of graduate education and the numerous beneficial outcomes far outweigh the challenges. The Senior Authors Add These Perspectives Taking a step back, it is hard to imagine how researchers trained to cross over disciplinary divides and collaborate with people outside their immediate area of expertise will not be a highly valuable and sought-after resource in the coming years. Some of the most stimulating and productive areas of science and technology innovation are occurring at the interface between different disciplines, including nanotechnology, nano-biotechnology, and synthetic biology. Although progress will rely on deep, specialized knowledge, it will also depend increasingly on scientists who can speak a number of scientific languages, understand and contribute to multiple fields of research, and spot and take advantage of synergistic connections. Beyond this, there is an increasing demand for people who can bridge the worlds of science, social science, ethics, and policy in using research and development within society. Scientists who are capable of making connections between these often disparate worlds will be the innovators and enablers of the next generation of science and technology; but only if the education system equips them for the task. There is evidence that efforts to train scientists in working across disciplines are yielding positive results. Fields such as nanobiotechnology would not exist if it were not for the success of such programs. Yet the experiences of the two junior coauthors suggest that there is still more progress needed before institutions overcome long-time barriers to effective multidisciplinary education. Preservation of discipline identities, discipline-based tenure requirements, and poor training infrastructure still seem to conspire to make multidisciplinary training an arduous and sometimes thankless process. In thinking about the request by graduate students in 2000 for a training program to be based on a multiple-mentor model, to formally include teaching and curriculum concerns in career planning, and to find practical ways to situate their education and training within the context of the global economy (7), the academe has made little progress. The Path to Future Multidisciplinary Graduate Education Future science-based discovery and innovation will depend on scientists who are not constrained by outmoded ideas of disciplinary boundaries. For success, “multidisciplinary” needs to become the norm, not simply a nice idea or a convenient buzzword. As new and more effective approaches to multi-
r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
_
disciplinary training are developed, perhaps it is time to listen more to those with the most intimate experience of the system's successes and failures; the students who are training now to be the next generation of research leaders. Literature Cited 1. Andrews, N.; Burris, J. E.; Cech, T. R.; Coller, B. S.; Crowley, W. F., Jr.; Gallin, E. K.; Kelner, K. L.; Kirch, D. G.; Leshner, A. I.; Morris, C. D.; Nguyen, F. T.; Oates, J.; Sung, N. S. Translational careers. Science 2009, 324, 855. 2. Duderstadt, J. J., Engineering for a changing world: a roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education; Ann Arbor, MI: The Millenium Project, 2008, http://milproj.dc.umich. edu/ (accessed Oct 2010). 3. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research; The National Academies Press: Washinfton, DC, 2004. http://www. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11153 (accessed Oct 2010). 4. Kim, K. Y. Research training and academic disciplines at the convergence of nanotechnology and biomedicine in the United States. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 359. 5. Roco, M. C. Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education and training. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003, 21 (10), 1247. 6. Walker, G. E.; Golde, C. M.; Jones, L.; Conklin Bueschel, A.; Hutchings, P. The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-first Century; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2008. 7. Nyquist, J. D. Woodford, B. J. Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What Concerns Do We Have? University of Washington, Center for Instructional Development & Research: Seattle, WA, 2000. 8. Kriegel, C., presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Advancement of Science, Chicago, IL, 2009 (unpublished). 9. Koehne, J., presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Advancement of Science, Chicago, IL, 2009 (unpublished). 10. Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline; Golde, C. M., Walker, G. E., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2006. 11. Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 2007, http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf. 12. Gewin, V. Nanobiotechnology: small talk. Nature 2006, 444 (7118), 514. 13. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Funding. http://www.nano. gov/html/about/funding.html (accessed Oct 2010).
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 88 No. 1 January 2011
_
Journal of Chemical Education
55
