1 Bernard M. Steckler
Seattle University Seottle, Worhington 98122
The World of Science and the World of People Multidisciplinary approaches to their integration
With growing intensity, a call is upon us-science educators must effect a better synthesis of the world of science and the world of people. To some of us, this charge translates to the dual need to provide a realistic measure of scientific knowledge and an understanding of science and technology as comprehensible resources for man. It is my purpose in this paper to offer a specific model for achieving these ends. This model rests on the (testable) assumpt~onthat efforts to enhance the public understanding and comfort with these cultural forces can become more-effective if representative science educators -from secondary schools through universities-collaborate with educators in non-science fields. And the thrust of this cooperation must extend beyond the traditional concern for disciplinary content. Neither the springs nor consequences of public disaffection with science nor the call for broader goals in science education is new. The thrust of statements calling for the broader vision necessary to generate and maintain empathy from the public bas been sharply focused by Warren Weaver (I). Inclusion of, if not emphasis on, the teaching of the philosophy, sociology and psychology of science and technology has been strongly urged by others (2-5). More recently, readers of THIS JOURNAL and Chemical and Engngineering News can take note of the increasing visibility of articles and editorials calling for new attitudes and practices (6-8).l Without doubt, the most comprehensive entry was the Report of the International Conference on Education in Chemistry, "The Snowmass Conference" (9). W. T. Lippincott in a n Editorial in THIS JOURNAL, emphasized the centrality of attitudinal change in implementing one of the chief resolutions (9). The cultural diaorientnrion and ronfuiion arising from the fad. ure of srlence and technolorn to remain comprenrns~hlet o the crtrzen is a rauie for maw cunrern. For tho.? uhu wuuld rmplc-
ment the Snowmass resolution to reach and to influence the puhlic, the problem is much more of self-examination, reorientation, and reevaluation of attitudes than of telling, teaching, and propagandizing the citizenry. Before exhorting the public to virtue, the scientist and the teacher of science might well clarify for themselves the meaning of virtue; before proposing new dimensions of responsibility for the citizen, the scientist might well discipline himself to new models of accountability; and rather than contributing more to the tornado of profusion, he might be wise to bring aid and relief to the victims. The assertion of a need to reevaluate (and change) attitudes leads to the question of how to do it. And is it only attitudes of science educators for which change is in order? I think not. Presented in part at the 26th Annual Northwest Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chemical Education Division, Bozeman, Mont., June, 1971. 'Cultivation of an integrative attitude for science majors does not appear to be fashionable. Isn't there something disingenuous about a reluctance of chemistry teachers to provide for someof their majors a bit of the same medicine they prescribe for nonscienee majors and the public. 46 /Journal of Chemical Education
Integrative Approaches
'Could it not likely he that attitudinal change toward the work of others on the part of educators in both the humanities/arts and the sciences would profit many students? Could it also not likely be that a viable approach to accomplish these changes could emerge through some. common pursuit of some aspects of the human experience which we all share? I think it is unlikely that many science educators can move effectively toward appropriate attitudes and practices if we look only to ourselves for an understanding of this problem and of approaches to solving it. The history of our training and the climate of opinion in which we have operated have failed to foster extension of our vision and imagination into the spectrum of human concerns. Students know this. We all know that there have been no rewards among our peer group for this kind of activity (10). Students know this, also. This is why I would like to report an approach that feels increasingly comfortable to me. It is an approach that is first and foremost an attempt to engage in and catalyze genuine communication among scientists and non-scientists. It is an approach dedicated as much to what we must learn as to what we should teach. It involves overt attempts to reach out toward non-scientists-to ask them to "do things together." It requires sincere interest in exploring their views of science and of us, and why they are held (11, 12). In the interest of sustained communication, this approach forces a search for common ground. Common Interests
Perhaps the notion that educators in the arts, humanities, and sciences do have academic interest in common is wishful thinking (on my part, a t least). Is there really material worthy of exploration and study, material which is both substantive and catalytic as far as a rapprochement is concerned? There's a great deal of it! And it has been explored and contributed by great scientists and diverse observers of life in its manv contexts. Perusal of the tables of contents of a remarkable trilogy of books (13-15) reveals a parade of ideas from many of the most respected men of history. The focal point throughout is the nature of science and its influence on our lives. I am struck with the congruence of the answers to this question when put over the past several years to oonscience colleagues and students. They converge to the recognition that the failure of the scientific community to make these dimensions visible has precluded a basis for informed consideration of them by the scientific community or the puhlic. Our experimentum crucis is not the search for such material, but rather the development of a climate and of mechanisms favorable to our learning and teaching it as a complement to technical material. I offer in the Appendix explicit questions and discussion topics (with exemplary references) which treat examples of what I mean by common ground (16). I offer these as vehicles with which to explore issues that touch on man's
-
physical, psychological, and spiritual needs. They are vehicles which have catalyzed interest in science among non-science students and interest toward cooperation among some of my colleagues in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. This collaboration can lead to stimulating curricular activities jointly or individually conceived and/ or executed by science and non-science faculty members. Specific Curricular Suggestions I have explored a number of such curricular activities including the following (1) A one-quarter course in chemistry which develops important physiochemical concepts and selected content from chemistry within an historical and philosophical perspective. The course features Dialog-discussion of designated questions scheduled during regular class hours and sandwiched in between sessions on technical material. Student choice of (a) an action-oriented project and report (generally exploring a technological development); ( b ) a student-designed discussion with science majors on topics seleeted for their common interest (with accompanying report); ( e ) a term paper an questions or topics typified by those listed in the Aonendix.
chemist, a theologian, an experimental psychologist, and a philosopher have joined me in such discussions. (2) A weekly seminar developed to complement the technical material in a six-quarter course in natural science for Honors Program students (primarily humanities-oriented). Material exploring the logical structure and presuppositions of science and its values, scope and limitations as well as its relationship to and distinction from technology, are approached in dialog fashion. The seminar activities for this course were designed and moderated by a philosopher (Dr. James J. Tallarico, former head of the Honors Program at Seattle University, now at Dominican College of San Rafael, San Rafael, Calif.) and myself. We were aided by participation of the science faculty members overtly responsible for the technical material, by faculty members drawn from nonscience areas an an occasional basis, and by science majors coming from BS degree programs. (3) A one-quarter seminar (dialog-discussion) for first-year chemistry majors intended to introduce aspects of science complementary to the traditional content. (4) Dialog-discussion approaches to designated topics for science majors-chiefly chemistry and biology-in an organic chemistry course. (Time for the discussion part of this activity was made by bagging one full afternoon of laboratory for each of two quarters. Because of the hallowed character of this sanctuary, adeeision tosteal labaratory time washitially a traumatic one.) (5) Fre~uentevaluation on a one-to-one and instructor-to-class basis of the value of such discussions, the propriety of the approaches being explored, and the legitimacy of gobbling up time for this sort of thing. (6) A course for high school teachers in an NSF Summer Institute Program at Seattle University, summer, 1971-"The Strueture and Relevancy of Science: analysis of tbe nature, likitations, values and impact of scientific thought; significant historical and philosophical scientific developments selected from the natural sciences; the impact of scientific knowledge on man's condition; potential of the scientific and technological revolution."
Assessment How have students-science majors and others-responded to this approach? The response of many nonscience majors, perhaps predictably, is one of pleasant surprise and of increased interest in the technical material. Numerous science majors have insisted that science teachers should play an active role in exploring with them the cultural impact of science and technology. They insist that recommendations to pursue such matters in an appropriate humanities, political science, or social science course (if available) would translate to the message "Do
a s I say, not as I do!" As a general finding, both science majors and non-majors zero in on joint sessions in which students and staff from both groups are present. They find such sessions to he t h e most stimulating and productive of useful information and attitudinal change. Enthusiastic response from faculty colleagues in uonscience areas constitutes one of the most encouraging aspects; it signals a possihle reversal of an ominous trend. How about response from science faculty colleagues a t my institution and others? ' N o t surprisingly, it has ranged from interest and encouragement through apathy. One of the most promising responses came from 38 high school teachers of chemistry, physics, and mathematics from throughout the United States who were enrolled in the NSF Summer Institute course a t Seattle University (summer, 1971) which I described earlier. Exnlicit details of this activity will be reported in a subsequent paper. Let me state now that the ~revailiner e c e ~ t i o nwas one of enthusiastic endorsement o i the (virkally;nfamiliar) content and widespread interest in searchinn for content and methodoloaies s k t a h l e for incorporation into their activities. Limitations Let me make it clear that I do not view my suggestions as a panacea for science education. My interest is to make visible an approach which has a very low profile in natural science education; it has been scarcely discernible in the chemical sciences. Integration of humanistic dimensions of science would probably be marginally effective for some students and would preempt time which could be spent more fruitfully on other new approaches. One such approach which I find refreshingly honest is offered a t Issaquah High School, Issaquah, Wash. "Consumer Chemistry" is one of two alternatives to the Chem Study courses which are also offered a t this high school. This course is meaningful to terminal students who most likely would otherwise "stay as far away from chemistry as possible"
(17). Reservations Let me now turn to two obvious concerns about this approach. The first involves a question of priorities; the second involves the discomfiting prospect of talking about things we do not know much.ahout. Let me identify the grounds for the first reservation as a suspicion that such activity on the part of scientists and science students constitutes a threat to good science leading ultimately to the weakening of the scientific enterprise. Let me ask in response why we cannot generate a n atmosphere of respect for those of us who are concerned chiefly with the teaching of natural science and its public understanding as well as for those whose chief interests and skills rest in basic research, applied research, or development! How can we possibly expect to command understanding and respect from the public for the broadly-based impact of natural science when we refuse to acknowledge overt consideration of this within our own ranks?! The second reservation-that of concern for our nrohable lack of background in humanistic dimensions-is a meat deal more substantive. Recopnition of this common impediment to possibly compleme&y activities emphasizes one of the most widespread consequences of our heritage of science education. For me, as for others, the nurturing of an "integrative attitude"-one complementary to the technical training I've enjoyed-and the development of rudimentary skill a t cutting across interdisciplinary boundaries has been a source of stimulation rather than an awesome challenge. Development of one's own background and confidence in this area can be slow, of course. But I have found it to be accelerated and selfstimulating through the ready response of others, when they aresought out! Volume 50, Number 1. January 1973
/
47
Snowmafs, Where Are You? Traditional approaches toward a task of this magnitude can he helpful. But new programs financially assisted by government and private foundations for curricular and teacher-training activities are clearly in order. Surely the ACS should lend moral, if not financial, support to the teachine of chemistw and other natural sciences as humanities and to symposia called to explore appropriate mechanisms. But for some of us, students and teachers alike, a decision now to seek out colleagues in non-science areas, to exolore with them the humanistic dimensions of science and'to learn with them can immediately generate understanding, knowledge, and empathy. In summary, let me emphasize that I am not advocating a deemphasis of science and technology. On the contrary, I am concerned with optimizing their role for both science and society. I am not advocating the complete ahandoument of traditional attitudes and practices, hut rather the development of complementary ones. I am not suggesting that this he pursued by all of us; rather that all of us grant respect and encouragement to those who do have the interes~and skill, active or latent, to mount these complementary practices. Specifically, I have proposed that we develop greater ouhlic understandine and ao~reciation of science hv building a bridge to common'ground. I have identifieh this as a humanistic dimension of science. I have sueeested that we solicit the help of our colleagues, teachercand students from non-science areas in this construction and, in turn, help them. I have proposed an additional architectural design and a number of exemplary structural elements. I now invite your consideration and cooperation. Let us build that bridge!
(11) For a sobering analysis ol the Scientific enterpnre snd the youthful opposition of the technocratic society if ha. spawned, see Razak, T.. "The Making af s Counter Culture." Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. \'nu York. 1969. Theadore Roizsk is a dissenting historian, a member of the history department of California Stare College st Hayward. His ehsptor. "The Myth of Objective Con~eiousnesa,"I psrricularly recomm~ndfor its capacity to make the reader trained in scienceawareof alleged limitafioluof theobjective mode. A provocative plea for the valuable mle of eountereultural epistemology in the science of complex systems has been mado recently See Blackburn, T. R., Sersn
