Undergraduate Research As Chemical Education A Symposium -
-
Research and Its Support in the undergraduate-chemistryDepartment Corwin Hansch and R. Nelson Smith Pomona College, Claremont, CA 9171 1 A good teacher is someone who can get students to study. Of course there are many ways to accomplish this, but one of the best is through involving them in research that they are convinced is important. The importance of any research project, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder. Thegreat organic chemist, Willstatter, stated that progress cannot he made in scientific research unless the researcher has the facility to greatly overestimate the value of what he is doing. I t is the good teacher who must create the feeling that the subject a t hand is of great importance, so important in fact that the student will put off other pleasures to study it. While such illusions can he created in the classroom it is more difficult to generate excitement ahout most undergraduate lahoratory courses: the tension surrounding the unknown in research is usually lacking. And yet, i t is in the laboratory that chemists grow and mature. Another problem with most lahoratory classes is the short time period of 3 4 hr, a significant fraction of which is spent in setting up and cleaning up. In an uninterrupted 10-hr or better day, day after day during the summer, students can make much greater progress. Although there seems to he general agreement about the importance of research in the education of student and teacher alike a t the undergraduate level (1-3) relatively little publication comes from undergraduate institutions except for a small group of moderately productive colleges. Spencer and Yoder (3) note that the top 20 undergraduate college chemistry departments produced 0.5 papersffaculty memberfyear during the period 1967-16, while faculty a t eleven selected universities produced a t about six times this rate (3.2 papersffacultyfyear). Most of the other 174 undergraduate chemistry departments in Spencer and Yoder's study show very low to zero rate of puhlication. Of course success should not he measured by numbers of papers published, but by the quality of the puhlications. By this standard, undergraduate chemistry departments also look poor compared to the universities. Discoveries of major importance have rarely been made in undergraduate colleges. There are many reasons for the poor research performance, but most important is the feeling by those involved that it is virtually impossible to do important work in a college chemistry department. College administrations seem to have accepted this view and hence have held low expectations for creative work from their chemists. This attitude allows them to avoid responsibility for providing the necessary facilities and research support. The result is that research cannot he done until facilities are available, and facilities cannot be made available until the research has been done to show that it is possible. Given this situation i t is not surprising that many young chemists concerned ahout their careers have tried to avoid being stuck in undergraduate departments. After all, 10 years of a blank puhlication record may well destroy one's mobility these days. After such a period about all one can do is hope that tenure rules will not be abolished so that one is forced into the joh market. The lack of aresearch atmosphere in the undergraduate department means that the principle of residual impoverishment operates. Those faculty interested in crea-
tivity manage to find better opportunities, leaving a residue of those having little interest in advancing knowledge in their areas of interest. There i s a situation that sometimes exists in. or between. college departments that often leads to much greater research nroductivitv than would he expected. When two facultv members with similar or complementary research interests are present thev can mutuallv interact and stimulate each other and theirstudents in a way and to a degree that is remarkablv meater than a factor of two. This is a situation that may weil be worth developing and encouraging when it is possible to do so. The production of well-trained students who go on to obtain the PhD decree does not seem to he hichlv correlated with research productivity. Ot'the 10 u n d e r & I " a t e departments which were s~,urcesof the most PhD's in thr period 196:-7fi. six produced 14 or fewer puhlications in the l0:year period and 4 produced 36 or more. Spencer and Yoder (3) report an overall correlation coefficient of 0.48 between PhD productivity (1920-76) and publications for the 174 colleges in their study. On the other hand,providing a research environment may actually produce hetter educated students and faculty. The table below. constructed from the data of S ~ e n c eand r Yoder ( 3 ) ,arranges undergraduate departments on the basis of how manv NSF fellowshios were won hv their students in the 10-year beriod 1967-76 along with the average number of publications from each department for each class. Auerage No, of W o n 2 or more fellowships W o n 1 fellowship
Won 0 fellowships
N o . of Departments
Publicatioml Dept.
10 17 147
32.2 12.0 5.5
Corwln Hans& was tmn in Kenmare, No* Dakota in 1918. He to* his BS at Illinois in 1940 where he did research under lhe direction of C. C. Price. His PhD is from New York University in synthetic wganic faculty at Pomona chemisby (wim H. G. Lindwall). In 1946 he joined CoIIeoe where he is now Professor of Chemistrv. The recioient of two Glggenheim Fel owsh pr, re has amhnea 224 research papers of wh Cn 49 were eoabthored oy unrnrgradbates In !la y mvoiveo n synthess of heterocyclic compounds, he is best known for his pioneering work in the systematic relatingof chemical snucture to biological activity of organic compounds. Hansch was one of the 300 most cited scientists during the pericd 1965-78.
R. Nelson Smlth was oorn n 1916 in Long Beach. California He recelved hns BA from Pomona Col ege in 1938 wnere he d d researchwib W G Le ghton on the quant~myleld of nyarolys8s of chloroacelocacnd which was published in two papers in J. Amer. Chem. Soc. On corn pieting his PhD at Stanford in 1942 with P. A. Leighton. he held appointments at the University of Missouri Schwl of Mines and Metallurgy and in the Manhattan Project before assuming a faculty appointment in 1945at Pomona. He retired in 1982anddled December 23. 1983. The reclpoent of aGdggenne m Fellawsh#p,he was the a~thorof 52 papers m lne areas at pnOlaChemoSlry. s.dace cnemoslry. ana enrym c reactions. of which 24 were coauthored by undergraduates
Volume 61 Number 6 June 1984
517
It would seem that the departments with the better research atmosoheres produced better educated students, or that good students are attracted tosurh departments. Although undergraduatr departments made good records in the production of scientists in the past ( 4 , 5 ) ,it is not clear that they will continue to do so. It becomes more and more difficult for the small department to obtain and support the expensive instrumentation and computers so essential to modern chemistry. Without good facilities the hest students and faculty will go elsewhere. The faster rate of communication of scientific results t o the nublic throueh ram science reporting by slick magazines, television and newspapers, as well as by the very sophisticated magazines such as Scientific American, catch the attention of the brightest students in high school or earlier. Such students become aware of where the exciting work is occurring and are attracted to these institutions in the same way bright young faculty are. The first choice of these bright young people for higher education is not likely to be an institution limited to undergraduatescience unless their facilitiesand faculty can project an exciting image. This will be hard to do for schools whose faculty leave thidepartment when their classes are over. The strongest . and best students want more than a friendly "Mr. Chips." The continuing revolution in computer science is an added burden to the small institution. There is so much excitement in the air about artificial intelligence,stereo graphics, etc., that many of the brightest students are thinking of computers first and science second. Chemical and EngineeringNews (6)recently reported that 1%of high school graduates are interested in a career in math, 2% in physical science (physics, chemistry, and geology), and that 5%were interested in computers. Not all of the budding computer experts will make their careers in c o m ~ u t i n ebecause manv will eventuallv. eo into other areas of science. However, they will pick a college or a universitv on the basis of what the oo~ortunitiesin comoutine ~ d look o very &a; appear ti be. Here again the c o ~ l e g ~ not tive. Unless heroic measures are adopted, the result will be that fewer of the best scientifically oriented students and voune facultv members will select undereraduate colleees as firsichoice:Undergraduate science dep&tments will ge left as training mounds for oremedical students. Even at present. if the premeds were removed from most colleges, the science deoartments would he deserted. The undergraduate institutions may not be able to match the large research universities in facultv or facilities, but thev can d o a great deal more than t h e y a r e doing t o develop chemistrv departments where students can work closelv on importadt research with good researchers interested in teaching. The crucial ingredient for success is the attraction of imaginative researchers to the undergraduate schools. As a minimum, this means good facilities and reasonable teaching loads. But, with the difficulty in getting federal research funds to start young faculty on their careers, colleges cannot expect outside sources to carry the complete burden. They themselves must support creative research directly if they are to attract the highest quality tarulty andstuden&inrumpetition with the many high-power~.dscience institutions.
-
-
a
-
Internal Research Funding- at Pomona Pomona College instituted in 1982 a program of substantial internal funding for research. The Pomona plan has a two-fold thrust. One is increase the likelihood ofbiring afirst-class scientist when a tenure-track position becomes available, and the other is to provide for all science faculty research support over an extended period of years. This plan is separate from the established college programs that provide for sabbatical leaves and limited travel expenses to professional meetings. In what follows, the way in which these two portions of the plan are operated will be described, accompanied hy com518
Journal of Chemical Education
mentary on the reasoning and philosophy which lie behind these orocedures. he chance to select a new faculty person is a rare occurrence in a small college de~artment,andit should be treated as a golden opportu'ity to accomplish important long-term goals. Improving the research attitude, outlook, and productivity of the department is one of the foremost goals. As part of the process for filling a new tenure-track science position at Pomona each candidate isasked tosuhmit an essny about his research interests and to outline his plans for initiatinga research propam. He is alsoasked to show how undergraduate students might participate in this research, and to prepare a budget for what might he called the start-up costs. The Department Chairman and Dean of the Faculty, in consultation with the coordinator of the Seaver Science Research Fund. are empowered to offer a substantial sum toward the research start-up costs of the winnine candidate as an inducement to having him enthusiastically accept the position heingoffered. He id also encnurared to aoolv for additional continuing funds from such organiiationsai Petroleum Research ~ u n dand Research Corooration as well as from the Seaver Science Research ~ u n d From . the very beginning the fact is established that the College is seriouslv interested in active rewarch involvement, that 2 intends 6 support i t in a reasonable fashion with cash as well as words, and that it will take the results of such research efforts into account when questions of promotion and tenure arise. No effort is made to specify that a given amount of start-up money will be available for all candidates in all fields because of thi ereat differences in the individual needs. nor is i t nossible 6 guarantee the total start-up money for all new ;andidates because. for some. the amount would he iust too meat. On the other h k d , no attempt is made to see how little could be eiven in order to land the candidate. An honest a t t e m ~ist maie to help each candidate to the extent that it is reasonably possible. One complicating factor that enters into arriving at the start-up sum that will be awarded is that it is taken from the same money that is used to support the ongoing research of the established science faculty. So, in order to keep the total oroeram on an even keel. it is necessarv to have a schedule of kxp&ted retirement dates so that thegrants to established faculty are not made a t levels that will preclude help to the new f&ulty when it is needed. We haveonly ~ i m i t e d e x ~ e r i ence with which to answer the inevitable auestion of how much money has been given as start-up grants. T o date, these sums have been $6,222,$20,000,$34,000,and $45,000. The procedure used for awarding grants to tenure-track science faculty is relatively straightforward and, in many ways, resembles that used by the Research Corporation. At the beginning of classes in the fall the coordinator of the Seaver Science Research Fund sends to each science faculty member a notice that outlines the basic qualifications for application and the principles and procedures that are used in &king the fmal research awards, along with a cover letter that encourages a request for an application form. The information in this notice includes: Reforesubmittingan application for aSeaver Research Grant,an applicant must previously have submitted an application to at least two granting agencies outside the College within the last two years. If these applications were unsuccessful, or if they were inadequately funded, or if subsequent to their funding it is found that additional funds are needed, then a application for a Seaver Science Grant will he accepted. Applications must he made on special forms provided for this purpose. When appropriate, applicants are encouraged to apply for grants of two and three years duration. The President appoints each year a person to act as ewrdinator. After an application has been received by the coordinator it will be refereed by at least five persons named by the applicant as highly qualified to judge the proposal, at least three being not known personallv hv the aoolicant. Both the amlication and the referee rewrta will hi kept in sGict confidence by the coordinator,and passed along to the external selection committee, which will make the final decision
to gmnt or deny. Based un referee commcnm, the wmmittee alw has the power t o make awards th3t are larg~ror smaller than requested. If thmugh special knowledge ur misunderstanding, a referee should
make a particularly critical comment on an important paint that might be clarified or strengthened by the applicant,the coordinator will give the applicant an opportunity to rebut the comment, though the name of the referee will not be revealed. When a proposal is in its draft state, the coordinator will, of course, be pleased to work with an applicant in whatever way he can to strengthen the proposal. The selection committee will normally meet once a year. [The four members of the external selection committee are distinguished university scientists from the fields of biology, chemistry, and physics (all from the state of California), and the Western Regional Director of the Research Corporation who serves as chairman. Their terns of service are for five years, with staggered starting dates. They are paid a substantial sum for their service, as well as travelling P- X ..~ ~~~P r" -S -~ ~ -
--,
The external committee will. uf necessity, have to keep thesum of its awards within che sum of money available for disbursement. If in any year the dollar sum of the approved grant is greater than the amount of money availahle, the committee is instructed to give priority and preference to the younger applicants,rather than to scale down the manta to all. It should also he borne in mind that. although a p n t may he approved for up to three years, paymenu (to individual researchacrounts) will be mnde foronlyone year at a time, with the unmd and third year payments xul~jcctto availability of funds. Since research by its very nature is unpredictable and may require adaptation in order to exploit promising leads, the recipient of a grant should feel free t o make changes in the emphasis or direction of the work as it progresses. If major changes are contemplated, prior approval should be obtained. The funds must not be diverted to the suooort of work unrelated to that described in the aonlication. .. Shun repomare due each year on the anniversary date of thegrant until grant funds haw been fully expended or the wurk has reached a logical ronrlusion. 'l'hese reports should t,e submitted to the coordinator on the form furnished for this purpose. Grant recipients are urged to publish the findings of their research in the appropriate scientific iournals. acknowledeine suoport of the Seaver Science Research Fund. . .' ~
.~ .~ ~
~
When a faculty person requests an application form from the coordinator he also rereives an additional set of instructions outlining the format ofthe proposal and budget and restrictions on covered expenses. 'l'hese instructions are very similar to those required by national granting agencies. The application form, very similar to that used by the Research Corporation, is five pages in length. It asks for the pertinent information about the education and experience of the applicant, a short statement of the significance of the research, a plan of procedure, a proposed budget (year-by-year, uo to three vears). information about other research erants i i hand, or ln process of application, or turned down'm the oast two vears. and for a list of ~ublicationsfor the past five years. It also requests a list of f k e authoritative professional scientists in the same research field as the a~olicant.three of whom are not known personally to the ap&cant; these will serve as the nucleus for outside referees of the proposed re. search. When the referee reports are all in, the coordinator sends
sets of completed applications and referee reports to the chairman of the external selection committee who distributes the sets to the committee members in advance and arranges a meeting date at which time the final dwisionsare made. An approximate value of the total sum of money availahle for the &rent year is also given to the committee. The committee is asked tomake awards only to those who deserve them, even if available money is unspent. If the total of deserving requests exceeds the funds available, the committee is requested to rank the applicants. Since some of the applicants will undoubtedly also be funded by outside agencies, the Seaver Funds thus released back to the College will then become available to those who missed out hy the ranking. Other than scientific merit, a major basis for selection is age; the younger applicant has priority over the older. From what has been said above it is clear that certain philosophies have been stressed. The Seaver Science Research Grants must not be expected as a matter of course, or simply as a matter of waiting in turn for rotation. Serious efforts must he expended to get grants from outside agencies before making application to the Seaver Science Research Fund. Scientific merit, as determined by authoritative workers in the field, is the prime basis for awards, with priority being given to young, less-established faculty who have not had the ~ r i oopportur nities in a more lush period of grants. At leastihree-fifths of the outside referees must be unknown ~ersonallvto the applicants. The ultimate selection is made by experienced, distinguished outside scientists so that no feeling of personal, departmental, or internal political bias can be said to have influenced the final decisions. When faculty come up for promotion or tenure consideration there is no longer a basis for using "lack of funds" as an excuse for not having carried out research; the funding is sufficiently strong so that all good proposals could he funded, especially among the younger facultv. In
