Robe* 1. Wolke University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Chemistry for the Nonscience Major A n experiment in relevance
The teaching of the terminal college chemistry course for nonscience majors is in some respects like the rearing of children. Almost everyone has convictions about how the job should be done, not in the least excepting those who have never attempted it. Those of the latter group who have observed the process closely before forming their opinions (and these are in the minority) usually base their convictions entirely upon what they see being done "wrong" by those in charge. And since no one can deny that there is a great deal beiug done wrong, it is relatively easy to muster a program, albeit a negative one, for doing the job "right." I n the case of the chemistry course for nonscience majors (NSM's), the observer almost invariably hopes that he will never actually have to do the job himself, for although there has been some erosion of the direct correlation between the amount of prestige one reaps from one's colleagues and the altitude of the course one teaches, such erosion of false values does not yet prevent the NSM course from falling too frequently to the lot of the one faculty member who is deemed to be the nearest thing to a nonscientist himself-and, one tells one's conscience, should therefore best be able to communicate with the customers.' The real reason that the teaching of NSM's falls to the less prestigious, of course, is simply that it is secretly felt to be a less important job than the training of chemists. The tenure of this attitude is rapidly succumbing, however, as the chilling realization grows among scientists that their societal priority is falling and that active communication with the nonscientific segments of our society may be, from a purely defensive point of view, one of their most urgent tasks. And it is not pleasant to contemplate the possibility that the present urgency may stem in part from a failure to communicate well in the past. How, then, is the communication to he accomplished? Clearly, the courses in science for nonscientists can be a most important medium which may well be re-examined from this point of view. 'Although i t is not the purpose of this paper t o discuss the choice of the teacher of a NSM e o u m wch as is described herein, it may he considered to be a corollary to what follows that the teacher should indeed be one who is able to conimunicate effeetively with nonscientists. But this ability almost certainly does not correlate at all-much less negatively-with scientific competence. It might be expected to be present to the greatest extent in that person on the frteulty whose interests and talents most widely span the Snowian two-culture gap, whose view of his own profession might thusbe expected to be the most objective and whose explanation of his mism d'etre as a chemist might therefore make the most sense to the nonscientist. In short, the teacher should be one.who can by personal example shatter the chemise stereotype with which so many young people appear to be ridden.
788
/
lournal of Chemical Education
While it is probably safe to say that there are no new ideas concerning the teaching of science to NSM's, there are today some new problems requiring the modification of some teaching aims and the introduction of some new techniques to accomplish them. I t is the purpose of this paper to describe an approach to the solution of these new problems. First, some assertions will be made about what the objectives of a chemistry course for NSM's "should he." These assertions are made without apology, in the belief that widespread discussion of the NSAI problem in chemistry must be fostered, that THIS JOURNAL is an appropriate medium for such a discussion, and that personal opinions can be useful provided that they stimulate a fresh and productive colloquy. Second, a chemistry course which attempts to accomplish these purposes will be described and the results of its recent offering at the University of Pittsburgh will he evaluated. Problems in the Teaching of Chemistry to Nonrcience Majors
The principal difficulty in the teaching of chemistry to students majoring in the social sciences or humanities has always been with us: by the very act of choosing his major the student has already declared that his interests are centered around the behavior and interactions of people rather than of nonliving things. Whether this conviction stems from individual temperament, from contact with a stimulating nonscience teacher, or from an unfortunate experience with a previous science course is of little importance by the time we find him sitting in what everyone knows is going to be his last chemistry classroom. What i s important is that he is not sitting there for the purpose of having his mind changed. The instructor with the missionary bent who crows at t,he end of the term that x students changed their majors to chemistry is confessing that he has probably done a disservice to the other n - x. The majorit,y of social science and humanities majors are what they are hecause they have never developed the urge to probe the behavior of nature, and they are simply not interested in doing so. A chemistry course for these perfectly legitimate and genuine nonscientists is a very different course from one which is designed to kindle or rekindle the urge in the few with inherent talent who have for one reason or another been side-tracked. The problem is partly one of mutual incredulity. Just as it is hard for some nonscientists to believe that there are intelligent people who choose to spend their lives studying the interactions of incomprehensible and useless substances, chemistry professors seem to find it hard to believe that a highly intelligent political science
major (for example) can really have made the right decision. While we readily recognize that one purpose of a chemistry course for NSM's is to break down their incredulity, we do not acknowledge that in order to do so effectively we must relinquish our own. As a result, many chemistry courses for NSn'l's are based on misdirected goals which cause them to be little more than exercises in frustration. For example, trying to share with our NSM's the kind of excitement we feel when a calculation or experiment begins to yield a long-sought answer can be as futile as trying to make them into chemists. A good teacher who is also eugaged in research should be able to describe the excitement he feels (and this should be among the highest goals of the NSM course), but he must rest short of expecting his students to experience it for themselves simply because not everyone is "turned on" by science. loor this reason, the frequently-expressed expectation by chemistry teachers and textbook authors that "the better student" will be challenged to study further on his own is in the NSM context nothing more than whistling in the dark. A corollary to this assertion may be added. As evidenced partly by the fact that not everyone is a fan of crossword puzzles, the joys of active problem-solving are not universally appreciated. The practice of putting all chemistry students, science or non-science, into a laboratory to "find out for themselves" is thus a highly questioriable one which should be closely reexamined. I n addition to the longstanding communication barrier between scientist-professor and nonscientiststudent, about which much has of course already been written, there are some new problems today which are products of the times. These are the problems arising from the student awareness which is currently sweeping our campuses. I n particular, the cry of "relevance" clamors for our attention and, if only for its persistence, requires an answer. There are those who, taking the cry quite literally, would answer it in the negative, arguing that every course in the university curriculum need not be (and indeed must not be) aimed a t the immediate problems of society, for is it not the major purpose of an education to empower the individual to cope with problems as yet unmet? The argument is of course a perfectly valid one in general. But let the curriculum be examined for an opportunity, or indeed for an obligation, to confront the urgent problems of contemporary society, and the inescapable conclusion is that if it is to happen anywhere the confrontation must take place in the one or two-semester "distribution of studies" courses for nonmajors. For it is here that the student receives all that he is ever formally to receive of an academic discipline; it is in this atmosphere of immediacy that be must learn, if ever, the role of that discipline in his environment. And the course must aim directly a t that objective. There is neither time nor justification for the pious expectation that either the relevance or the beauty of the subject will dawn upon the student while he is being guided through a maze of chemical topics which can best be described, to borrow a famous definition of history, as "just one damned thing after another." (Concern has, in fact, been expressed2 that even doctoral chemistry students, having been exposed
to a great deal of subject matter but without opportunity for reflection, emerge knowing only the words and not the music.) The cry for relevance can be interpreted partly as a plea for pertinence to the student's own educational objectives. Since he will in all probability never pursue the subject far enough to use it creatively in the solution of a future problem, there is not much point in taking him down the same pathway to mastery that has been devised for the ultimate practicioner: the major in the field.% Trying to turn out violinists, however rudimentary, from a group of expressedly non-musical people only courts fr~strat~ion.One must rather hope to turn out perceptive, non-performing critics. And yet chemistry courses for nonscience majors continue to be taught as if the objective were to produce miniature chemists. The textbooks, the syllabi, and the methods of teaching continue to be relaxed but otherwise virtually unmodified versions of those used in the first-year "mainstream" chemistry courses. Even the titles proclaim this misdirection: "Basic Principles of Chemistry," "l'oundations of Chemistry," "Introduction to Chemistry," and so on. While the mainstream chemistry student must indeed be provided with a rigorous introduction and a firm foundation, the nonmajor may understandably feel that an introduction to something he will never again encounter is a useless formality arid that a foundation which will never be built upon is nothing more than a hole in the ground. Objectives of the NSM Chemistry Course
How then is our aim to be improved? What is it we as chemists and educators would most like the student to carry into the world from the three or six credit hours of his life we have been awarded?' Since the only thing we really know about our nonmajor students is that they will emerge from the universities to become the vast majority of educated citizens who are not chemists, the quest,ion becomes quite simply: What should the educated citizen know about chemistry? I n this coutext it should be perfectly clear that a knowledge of the shape of a p orbital is not of overriding importance. Nor, it should hast,ily be added, is a knowledge of what bleach to use in the removal of an ink stain. But if the chemistry course which must be taken by a young person who is preparing himself to assume a place in society does not teach him how chemistry interacts with that society, it has given him little of lasting value. If it does not accurately depict the role of chemistry and chemists (and more generally of science and scientists) in past and present societies, if it simply feeds the stereotype that chemists spend dull lives pursuing monumentally un-
' HUTCHINSON, E., J. CHI:M. EDUC.,44,261 (1W7). The distinction between the ideal objectives of science courses for majors and nonmajors has been well drawn by Hutchinson (footnote Z),among others. The issue of the role of the distribution-of-studies requirement in the university curriculum is hereby sidestepped. In the present paper the existence of distribution-of-studies courses is taken as a fact of life. The question is how bept to utilize the one in chemistry. This paper, however, may be taken as an argument for separate courses for science majors and nonmajors, whatever the philosophy of requirement versuselective. Volume 47, Number 12, December 1970
/
789
important minutiae, it will have had even a negative value. And attempting to dramatize the importance of chemistry to society by pointing with pride to Nylon and DNA is not only too narrow a view hut it insults the student, who comes to us already more than willing to concede our technological prowess. Rather, the chemistry course for NSM's should teach the student why chemistry is an important intellectual activity irrespective of its utility. It should teach him how chemistry complements the other sciences and how the sciences themselves complement the arts, how chemistry can be a vehicle for the exercise of the same quality we are quick t o label creativity in the arts, and how good science differs from poor science or pseudoscience-this in spite of our being unahle to agree among ourselves. And here it might he emphasized that if the course is to be alive and stimulating-further components of the seemingly all-encompassing quality of relevance-there is no reason why the instructor, as the only real live chemist the students may ever meet, should not display his liveliness by injecting his own properly-labeled opinion^.^ The chemistry course for NShl's should tell the student who chemists (and scientists in general) are; what their hacBarounds and training are; what their human attributes are; whether they differ from other groups in intelligence, ethics, or morality; how their pronouncements on nonscientific matters are to be evaluated; what they value in each other's work; how they know what they claim to lcnow; which things they think they understand and which they don't; why, for example, one scientist may make a flatly dogmatic pronouncement to a reporter while the next may seem exasperatingly unable to say anything definite a t all-and which "expert" is one to believe? The chemistry course for NShl's should acquaint the student with the workings of the profession: Who does the research and development of new materials? Who does the so-called fundamental research? Are the best chemists selected t o teach? To administer? What do chemistry professors do in their "spare time between classes?" What do graduate students do? Is chemical research expensive? Who supports it? What's the annual budget of a typical university research project in chemistry? Is there ever any waste? Do chemists patent everything? Do they cooperate? Do they compete? Is there such a thing a3 an American Chemistry Society? Does it set standards? Does it license chemists? While many of these questions strike the present reader as amusingly naive, some of them are far from easy to answer with complete objectivity to a nonscientist. Yet honest answers to such questions are nothing more than the nonscientist should deserve and expect from the nonmajor course in chemistry. One need only sit down for a half-hour or so with a mature, intelligent, and generally well-informed nonacademic friend in, say, advertising or the arts to appreciate the universal ignorance of the workings of our profession, of our methods of communication, for example: of such things as "giving a paper" at a meeting, writing 'The necessarily personal nature of s, good NSM course has been pointed out by KIEFFER,W. F.,J. CHEM.EDUC., 45, 550 (1968).
790
/
Journal of Chemical Educofion
manuscripts for publication, the refereeing system, the submitting of proposals to funding agencies, and the dozens of other mechanics of chemical progress. If the purpose of teaching these things to the nonscience student is the common educational one of increasing his awareness of a segment of his environment, there is another, more practical (or, if you will, relevant) purpose, and that is to prepare him for at least one aspect of what has been referred to as "getting along on this island": namely, what might he called defensive comportment for the nonscientist in a technological society. For example, how is the nonscientist to know when he is being "conned" by pseudoscientific doubletalk which purports to "prove" the superiority of one commercial product over another? How is he as a citizen to make decisions on issues ranging from fluoridation to pollution to polyunsaturation when all around him are conflicting arguments? The brief chemistry course for nonscientists must be as effective as possible in developing the necessary criticality and habits of perception. And these qualities, it must be emphasized, cannot he instilled by the mere presentation of any amount of chemical subject matter. It is more important that the nonscientist learn the lessons of science-the skepticism, the caution, the thought progressions, the weighing of evidencethan learn the science itself. If time is not taken during the presentation of the science to dwell upon and savor its implications, the ability to discriminate in technical matters will not be developed in the nonscience student. More than anything else, it is this "dwelling on implications" a t the expense of presenting more subject matter which should distinguish the nonscientist's course from that of the science major. If the foregoing appears to advocate teaching about chemistry instead of teaching chemistry per se, it must hastily he pointed out that what is being advocated is both, since to the NSAI either one is useless without the other. Just as studying "more than he cares to lcnow" about the chemical bond cannot give him a feeling for the role of chemistry in society, so will a semester of socio-scientific discussion be meaningless unless the student has done some wading around in chemistry himself. Indeed, even if one wanted to, one could not show the relevance of and the lessons to be learned from chemistry without actually teaching some chemistry. The choice remains to be made, then, of what chemical subject matter to include. It would seem clear that ideally the material chosen should at once be illustrative of general patterns of scientific thought, be relevant to the current problems of society, and provide the hard knowledge upon which to base as many future technical decisions as we can foresee the nonscientist ever having to make-and all of this without compromising one's integrity as a professor of chemistry. I t is also clear that this choice is both difficult and controversial, for trying to accomplish both the teaching of chemistry and the teaching about chemistry in the time usually devoted solely to the former must inevitably involve the abandonment of some sacred cows in the traditional syllabi. And finally, an objective of the NSM course which must not be lost sight of is the simple satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. The NSAl may not have a high
degree of curiosity about the physical world; what he has is probably of just the right size to be satisfied in a semester or two, but the opportunity to do so should not be missed. A language major at the University of Pittsburgh, replying to the question, "What do you think the NSM chemistry course should accomplish?", wrote, "I have often wondered 'why?' when I see certain things. I want to know how things happen. I plan to become an elementary school teacher and I know that children will aslc me, 'why?'. I want to be able to give them some answers." It is fortunately in the nature of chemistry that such answers can be turned up in abundance during a onesemester course: answers to such questions as why water boils, why salt melts ice, why things are solid or liquid or hard or soft or colored or shiny or sticky, and what are heat and light and X-rays and fallout and aspirin? Providing the curious nonscience student with the answers to such questions is also a form of relevance, and it can readily be accomplished simply by taking the time to be explicit a t the appropriate places in the chosen syllabus. Methods and Mechanisms
An attempt was made during the fall of 1969 at the University of Pittsburgh to accomplish some of the objectives presented above. The evidence that a new approach was needed in the chemistry course for nonscience majors was ample, for in spite of its being taught by a ~ompet~ent and conscientious teacher, the course was thoroughly condemned in the student government's course evaluation book, a computer compilation of graded answers given by the students in the classes to a set of generally pertinent questions. It would not be unfair to characterize the course as it had been given as a standard one-semester "introduction to chemistry," covering the usual topics in lessthan-science-major depth. Its role had been to serve as a di~tribut~ion-of-studies elective for social science and humanities majors, who "must elect" a certain number of credits in the nat.ura1 sciences. Nursing students, for whom a separate course is given, were absent. I n modifying the course t o pursue the objectives set forth above, both the role of t.he course and its format of three hours of lecture and no laboratory or recitation were kept intact. Because it was felt that t,he lack of a scheduled recitation period could be disadvantageous, however, and as an attempt to personalize a large (165 students) class, the students were invited to communicate with one another regarding desirable topics for small discussion or study groups and then to submit them to the professor, who would schedule and attend an evening meeting of interested persons. No topics were submitted and no meetings were therefore held, partly perhaps because it is unrealistic to place the initiative for group action on the members of a heterogeneous class in a large university, very few of whom know anyone else in the room. (The question of student initiative is dealt with further below.) I n addition to the format, two other limitations were deliberately imposed. One was that the course be kept as much as possible within the bounds of chemistry. I n trying to develop a vivid and relevant course
for nonscientists, it is tempting to borrow freely from physics, astronomy, and geology, so that one creates a course in physical science rather than one in chemistry. Although more and more such courses are being devised, and while some have been quite successful, it was nevertheless considered interesting t o test the ability of virtually pure chemical subject matter, when presented in accordance with the principles here advocated, to interest the NSM. The other deliberate limitation was that the teaching be done "with the bare hands"; that is, by talking faceto-face with the students rather than through the intervention of computers, projectors, and receivers. Again, the issue being tested was whether chemistry itself can be made to appeal to nonscientists and to pertain in the modern milieu without paying sacrifice on the altars of false gods, which can too easily include the god of hardware as well as those of oversimplification, overgeneralization, pyrotechnics, and homely application. The experiment was to be one in the realignment of a course's objectives rather than one in the physical techniques of teaching. Lecture demonstrations were used when needed to illustrate principles, but not for mere effect. The course outline, with no implication of equal time for all major or minor headings, was as follows 1. Science (1.1 Art and science; 1.2 The sciences (matter, energy); 1.3 Creativity ("good" and "bad" art and science)] 2. Scientific Tools (2.1 Measurement (units, accuracy, calibration); 2.2 Previous experience; 2.3 Mathematien; 2.4 Models; 2.5 Induction, dedudon, hypothesis; 2.6 Theories; 2.7 Laws; 2.8 Intuition] 3. The Composition of Matter [3.1 States of matter; 3.2 Classification ofmatter; 3.3 Atoms (definite composition, atomic t,heory, atomic weights, isotopes); 3.4 Gram atoms and gram moles; 3.5 Conservstion of atoms (formulas, equations)] 4. Structure of the Atom 14.1 Discovery of electrons; 4.2 Discovery of nuclei; 4.3 The periodic table; 4.4 Arrangement of electrons in atom3; 4.5 Explanation of the periodic table] 5. Nuclear Energy [5.1 The nucleus; 5.2 Radioactivity; 5.3 ltadioactive Decay; .5.4 Nuclear power] 6. Gases (6.1 Phyfiical properties; 6.2 Doyle's law; 6.3 Charles' law; 6.4 Simultaneous changes; 6.5 Mixtures; 6.6 Diffusion; 6.7 The Atmosphere] 7. Liquids 17.1 Physical properties; 7.2 Kinetic molecular description; 7.3 Vapor pressure and boiling; 7.4 Freesing nnd melting; 7.5 Water; 7.6 Solutions] R. Metals and their compounds (R.1 Arrangement of atoms (properties of cry8tds); 8.2 Bonding (metallic, ionic, covdelent)] 0. Carbon [9.1 The element; 9.2 Oxides; 9.3 Hydrocarbons; 9.4 Organic chemistryl.
The syllabus emphasizes the propert.ies of materials rather than their interactions. This choice stems from the feeling that in a severely limited amount of time it is more useful for the nonscientist to learn the natures of some of the vast variety of materials which surround him than to learn about chemical change itself. Within this limitation the syllabusis a fairly standard one, more horizontal than vertical in its development,. The outline, it must he emphasized, shows only the teaching of chemistry nrhich was done. The teaching about chemistry does not show (except for topic 1 and part, of 2) because it constituted the flesh which was hung, as opportunity arose, upon the skeleton of subject-matter. This is the mechanism which was chosen as being the most nat,ural and appropriate for t,he amplification of relevant issues and generalized concepts: seizing upon opportunities as they arise naturally in the syllnbus. (The latter had been chosen, of course, partially with the object in mind of providing such opportunities.) Volume 47, Number 12, December 1970
/
791
ing some of the lecture topics. When it is considered together with the lack of requests for outside recitation meetings, the lack of "suggestion box" communications, 1.3, the public support of scientific research; 2.1, the adoption and the small response to the supplication to "write of the metric system in the United States; 2.2, how chemists down what you want this course to be," however, a communicate; 2.7, the importance of conservation laws in syndrome of passivism begins to emerge. The quesscience; 4.1, how important discoveries sometimes follow the improvement of experimental equipment; 4.2, the philosophy tion of to what extent this syndrome is to be laid a t the and principles involved in the study of insensible systems; 4.4 door of disinterest, of lack of time, of distaste for (rare gas chemistry), haw long-standing complaoencies can be the distribution-of-studies requirement, or of the charupset; 6.4, fallout and ridiation hazards; 6.7, sir and water acter of the University of Pittsburgh student or of the pollution; 7.5 (anomalous water), controversy in science. professor, while a very interesting one, is beyond the limits of objectivity and psychological competence of Current events of chemical importance were worked the present author. It may be noted in passing, howin whenever possible as they occurred. The Nobel prizes, for example, make headlines in the middle of ever, that when an explanation of the passivism was every fall semester; it would border on dereliction not specifically solicited in the otherwise unstructured course evaluations which the students were asked to to interject into the nonscientist's only chemistry write anonymously at the end of the semester, none course twenty minutes or so of lecture devoted to an was forthcoming save a few unapologetic admissions explanation at the appropriate level of the chemistry that no reading is ever done which is not required in winner's contribution, regardless of the topic then under discussion. Similarly, any newsmaking discoveries or school and hence that no interest,ing topics for discussion pronouncements by chemists can usually be analyzed could have been submitted by the students. The most probable answer may be that students in a course profitably in class. Before describing some other experimental features outside their fields of interest, which they are taking only to satisfy a requirement, are simply not likely to of the course, a word might be said about studentlift a finger unnecessarily. Any request for initiative professor communication. Every effort was made to obviate the students' feeling of being "lectured at" on the students' part, even though it be in response to a plea by some of their number for increased participaimpersonally without being given an opportunity to tion, must therefore fail. Or perhaps the feeling t,hat participate themselves in any meaningful way. The experiment in group discussion meetings has already the faculty is best qualified to determine course content been mentioned. A "suggestion box" mechanism via is more widespread than one is led to believe. the campus mail was also provided, so that students A few other innovations of the Pittsburgh course may be briefly noted. As a means of transmitting the flavor could at any time during the t,erm transmit (anonyof contemporary chemical research, the students were mously if desired) their comments on the course to the professor. No such communications were received given a reprint of one of the professor's recent research papers together with a reprint of one of Roentgen's during the semester. papers on the discovery of X-rays. In a subsequent The students were also invited on the first day of the term to write down their feelings about what. a disexamination question which they had been led to expect, the students were asked to contrast the two papers on tribution-of-studies course in chemistry should be. such grounds as complexit,y of concepts and equipment Twelve percent of the class accepted the invitation. Except for one studerit who used the opportunity to used, need for collaborative effort,,formalit,y of writ>ing request very politely a grade of A in the oourse, the style, and magnitude of the contribution to society. Neither the unintelli~bilit,yof the science in the conresponses were in general consonance with the objectives temporary paper nor the identity of its aut,hor inhibited outlined above; dominating were expressions of aversion the expression of some frank and perceptive judgments to excessive detail and of hopes for relevance to "everyby many of the students. The experience was felt in day life," for understating "how chemists go about" general to have been quite enlightening. their investigations, and for satisfying curiosity about An unusual feature of the course was the requirement some aspects of the physical environment. of a term hook report. A list of forty or so books on or The students were furt.her invited, indeed urged, to about chemistry and chemists or science and scientists help determine the subjects of occasional lectures by handing the professor newspaper and magazine art,icles was. constructed, from which the students were to on topical chemical (or even peripherally chemical) choose. Other titles could be reported upon with the instructor's permission. Some of the works included developments which they may have run across in their in the list were expository, some biographical, and some outside reading and about which they might want to philosophical. Some of the best-known authors inhear more. I n addit,ion to the usual stories on research cluded were J. B. Conant,, Albert Einstein, Laura developments carried by the New Yovk Times,the news magazines and the sunday supplements, two chemically- Fermi, George Gamow, Henry Margenau, Herman based controversies were raging in the Pittsburgh Mark, C.P. Snow, Pierre Teilhard, J. D. Watson, and headlines even while the course was being given. (See E. B.. Wilson, Jr.; others were mostly scientists, biographers, or "science writers." The students were below.) Nevertheless, not a single potential lecture asked to report upon what new insights their reading topic was submitted during the term. This paper cannot pretend t,o analyze the interplay had given them about science, about scientists, or of students' motivations, initiative, reading haybits, a b o u t the cultural or operative interactions of science with society. maturity, genuineness of desire for active participation, If their reports can be taken at face value, the stuand degrcc of belief in the professor's sincerity which dents learned a great deal from this assignment. For was responsible for this failure to participate in choosSome points in the syllabus outline which were used to launch more general discussions were
792 / Journal o f Chemical Education
example, the most striking,characteristic of the reports on biographical works was the abundance of expressions of surprise upon learning of the warmth and humanity of some of the great scientists (Bohr, Einstein, Fermi) and of the human fa1libilit.y of others. Apparently, if the University of Pittsburgh NSM chemistry students are a t all t,ypical, t h e stereotype of the stodgy, impassive, single-minded, unnatural, and all-but-inhuman scientist is still rampant among college students to a shocking degree and is in serious need of being exorcised. But more generally, whether in a biographical, cultural, technical, or philosophical vein, the hours spent reading, thinking, and writing about science appeared to be one of t,he most valuable aspects of the course. Although in the 1969 Pittsburgh course there was no time t o schedule more than one, an important contribution to a NShf course can be made by guest lecturers: professional ohemists sclected from the local industrial and academic communities and invited t o address the class on the subjects of their specialties. Ideally, thesc lectures should have the same dual character as the rest of the course: they would not only present some fact,ual chemistry but would sketch its position in the socictal scheme. In the hip vernacular, the guest chemist would simply describe his bag; he would tell why it fascinates him and why he feels it's worth spending a part of his life on. A biographical introduction of the guest by the professor would be an import,ant part of the picture. Only one final feature of the Pittsburgh NSM course will be mentioned: a deliberate study of scientific controversy. It is an unfortunate fact that some elementary and high school science courses, not unaided by the popular press, are prone to paint the sciences as monolithic bodies of incontrovertible fact. This exaggerited omniscience of science can become so firm a stereot,ype that the nonscientist dares not think for himself when anything the least bit technical is concerned. All the more perplexing to him, therefore, is the occasional situation in which the social urgency of an issue and an insufficiencyof hard knowledge conspire to create headlines declaring with restrained glee that "the scientists disagree." The phenomenon is common enough (hazards of smoking, birth-control pills, underground nuclear explosions, air pollution) to warrant its study in a NSM science course, not simply for the purpose of dissecting an interesting phenomenon but (again with an eye to "defensive comportment") to help the nonscientist recognize technical issues in which he need not yet bow to the last word of any given expert and can still behave as a thinking individual citizen. The location and timing of the 1969 Pittsburgh course were especially fortuitous in that two raging scientific controversies were highly accessible: the nature of anomalous water and the effects of low levels of nuclear radiations in the atmosphere. I n turning to anomalous water during a study of the properties of liquids (topic 7 in the course outline), a popularized article on thc subject in a national magazine was first read and analyzed in class. Attention was drawn to the journalistic necessity of having "an angle," and to the unfortunate one chosen by this particular author: that the existence of polymeric water has
been proven and that dozens of startling large-scale practical applications are imminent. This point of view was refuted by the professor, utilizing the current chemical literature. The analysis of the controversy was then furthered by a fortunatc coincidence: a departmental colloquium had been scheduled in the form of a debate between two highly qualified chemists, one a proponent of polywater and the other a skeptic. I n spite of the high technical level of the colloquium, the NSM students were urged to attend and t o observe first-hand a chemical research problem being thrashed out by experts in cordial combat. The experience was found to be a fascinating one by the few who attended. The other controversy studied at first hand by the class was less benign. It involved a University of Pittsburgh ~cient~ist who claimed t,o have uncovered a statist,ical correlation between past periods of at,mospheric nuclear weapons testing and increases (or at least cessations of decline) in the rates of infant mortality in regions presumably exposed to the fallout. I n addition to the emotional heat generated by the very nature of the issue, both t,he statistical claims and their disputation (notably by t,he A.E.C.) were accompanied at, times by unflattering characterizations. Press coverage, both local and national, was consequently abundant. The controversy was introduced to the class, more thari half of whom were already aware of it via radio and television, by reading to them portions of a comprehensive and objective, but in sum rather critical editorial on the scientist in question from a journal which had refused to publish his findings. This was done with the knowledge of the scientist himself, who then presented his data and arguments directly to the class a t its next meeting. The professor's own position on the validity of the data, although solicit,ed by some of the students, was deliberately withheld. Instead, the students were exhorted t,o sharpen their own critical faculties and to question everything they heard. The object.ive of the ent,ire exercise, of coursc, was to impress upon the students the fact t,hat there are scient,ific situations in which there are no simple "correct" answers, and to move them to reach an opinion in such a situation by trying to separat,e certainty from likelihood and surmise in light of t,he probable predilections of both sides. Results
As evidenced by the class' performance on the examinations, which were almost entirely on chemical subject matter, a respectable degree of understanding of chemical principles was achieved during the first offering of the NSM course here described. As evidenced by class attendance and end-of-semester anonymous evaluations, the students' acceptance of the course's objectives and methods was enthusiastic. Judging also by the students' evaluations, a better understanding of the dynamics of chemistry's role in society was achieved. There are many directions in which improvement may be sought. The error of misplaced initihve should, for example, be rectified. And of course cvery instructor will imprint his own emphases and values through his booklist, his choice of guest lecturers, and his introduction of topical issues. Volume 47, Number 72, December 7970
/
793
