Letter Editor’s
Editor-in-chief
Laura L. Kiessling University of Wisconsin, Madison Board of Editors
Jennifer A. Doudna University of California-Berkeley
Kai Johnsson Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
Anna K. Mapp University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Michael A. Marletta University of California, Berkeley
Peter H. Seeberger Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule
James R. Williamson The Scripps Research Institute Editorial advisory board
Carolyn R. Bertozzi University of California, Berkeley
Brian T. Chait Rockefeller Unviversity
Tim Clackson ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Jon C. Clardy Harvard Medical School
Benjamin F. Cravatt The Scripps Research Institute
Peter B. Dervan California Institute of Technology
Rebecca W. Heald University of California, Berkeley
Linda C. Hsieh-Wilson California Institute of Technology
Tony Hunter Salk Institute
Stephen C. Kowalczykowski University of California, Davis
Richard H. Kramer University of California, Berkeley
Thomas V. O’Halloran Northwestern University
Hiroyuki Osada RIKEN
Anna M. Pyle Yale University
Ronald T. Raines University of Wisconsin, Madison
Charles Sawyers University of California, Los Angeles
Stuart L. Schreiber Harvard University
Peter G. Schultz The Scripps Research Institute
Michael P. Sheetz Columbia University
H. Ulrich Stilz Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt
Christopher T. Walsh Harvard Medical School
Read, Write, and Forget Science
W
e at ACS Chemical Biology strive to educate scientists at all levels. When we attend meetings, we work hard to talk to all of you whether you are a student, a postdoctoral fellow, or an independent researcher. In addition to current research, we often discuss other topics that are of interest such as science policy, funding, and education. Although research discussions predominated at the recent annual meetings of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), the topic of education also permeated the sessions and hallway banter. It is clear the ACS, ASBMB, and many other societies are working hard to enhance science education, but they continue to face new challenges that threaten the pipeline of young scientists entering the field. The latest challenge comes from developments in K–12 education. A recent New York Times article titled “Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math” (1 ) discussed a disturbing trend to narrow the K–12 curriculum, placing greater emphasis on reading and math at the expense of other topics such as science and history. This article interprets a recent report from the Center on Education Policy (http://www.cep-dc.org/), which has been studying federal, state, and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It found that 71% of the nations 15 000 school districts are cutting back on subjects, including science, to make more time for reading and math. This practice was implemented because the 2002 federal law requires annual exams in only these two subject areas at the expense of encouraging young scientists, historians, artists, or musicians. In an effort to increase student understanding to a level that allows them to pass the standardized tests, some schools are going as far as requiring 2–3 hours of math or reading a day. For those who love these subjects, this is welcomed news—no more balancing chemical equations or dissecting frogs. Do the benefits of this intensive schooling outweigh the benefits of a broader education? The Secretary of Education believes that this “return to basics” approach solidifies student understanding and allows low-performing schools the opportunity to meet the federal standards. Some schools include history and science reading in an effort to retain other subjects in the narrow curriculum. Others in education, including some scientists, feel that this focused approach may rob future generations of essential scientific and historical knowledge that will subsequently impact their future prospects for jobs and higher education. In a recent New York Times letter to the Editor, Randi Weingarten, President of the United Federation of Teachers, commented on the impact of “return to basics” instruction on New York City students. A 2005 study of elementary school teachers in New York City showed that 85% of them spent less than 2 hours a week teaching science or social studies. Test scores did improve for their students, but the failure rate for eighth-grade social studies students increased from 62% in 2001–2002 to 81% in 2003–2004 (2 ). Data on scientific proficiency were not reported. If the new narrowed curriculum is helping students catch up on their reading and math, what is happening to the students who are not struggling in these subjects? Are they allowed to skip the extra hours of reading and math to enhance their understanding of science and social studies? There is little information on this group so it is unclear how the
10.1021/cb6001637 CCC $33.50 Published online April 21, 2006 © 2006 by American Chemical Society
www.acschemicalbiolog y.o rg
VOL.1 NO. 3 • ACS CHEMICAL BIOLO GY
113
Letter Editor’s
“return to basics” program will impact the gifted and talented students. The program could potentially limit student inquiry and stifle creativity. This “return to basics” trend may also impact science policy and global competitiveness. The students in K–12 are our future lawmakers. If they lack a basic understanding of science, will we be able to rely on them to make sound decisions regarding fiscal policy for research programs or to provide proper regulatory oversight of scientific research? For many of us, the thought of someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a molecule, a cell, or a chemical reaction legislating policies on drugs and stem cells is disturbing. Furthermore, if students are not exposed to scientific innovation, will they know how to participate in a culture of scientific discovery? Even President Bush acknowledged in his State of the Union address that “we need to encourage children to take more math and science and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations”. Through NCLB, the President is giving “… early help to students who struggle in math” but so far, little is being done at the federal level to enhance student understanding of science. Although we at ACS Chemical Biology may not directly impact K–12 education, our future success will depend on the proper education of our students. These are our future readers, authors, reviewers, and editors. We urge you to speak out on these educational trends and support your society’s efforts to shape education policy to guarantee that our future scientists are not left behind.
Evelyn Jabri Executive Editor
1. Dillon, Sam (March 26, 2006) Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math, New York Times. 2. Weingarten, Randi (March 27, 2006) To the Editor: Test prep isn’t education, New York Times.
114
ACS C H E M I C A L B I OLOGY • VOL.1 NO. 3
w w w. a c s c h e m i ca l biology.org
