Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
PART I
Opening Address and
Responses
OCR for page 2
OCR for page 3
1
Opening Address
EVELYN E. HANDLER
At its first meeting, in April 1988, the National Research Council
(NRC) Committee on High-School Biology Education put forth a seem-
ingly straight-forward question: How do we modernize curriculum to keep
up with the explosion of knowledge in the field of biology? Not surpr~s-
ingly, behind that simple question lies great complexity. The distinguished
academic biologists on our committee and the scientist-advisers to our
sponsor, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, as well as the teachers
and administrators who serve on our committee, recognize what a tangled
subset of issues the question unleashes. We cannot solve the problems of
content without addressing the entire context or what I choose to call the
ecology of education.
Some of the subset issues that need to be addressed include teacher
preparation, instructional objectives and strategies, texts and other instruc-
tional materials, institutional context, social context, and developmental
factors. And we need to consider the interconnectedness of biology with
the other sciences physics and chemistry, but also earth science and the
social sciences. If we consider biology a component of scientific literacy,
which In turn Is an ingredient of cultural literacy, how do we make our
young people literate?
Evelyn E. Handler is the president of Brandeis University. She holds a Ph.D. in biology from
New York University and is a former dean of the Division of Sciences and Mathematics, Hunter
College, Columbia University. She is also a former president of the University of New Hamp-
shire.
3
OCR for page 4
4
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
We know we are failing to do so. I could recite a litany of reports and
studies that document the dimensions of our failure, but you know them
as well as I do. So let me quote from the succinct summary of Armstrong
and co-workers (Education Commission of the States, 1988~:
Assessments have shown that the achievement of American students in science
has, in general, declined since 1972 and remains poor in comparison to student
achievement in other developed countries. Research conducted in the 1970s and
1980s has demonstrated that science instruction has had low priorly. It has
been, at best, textbook-dr~ven and focused on content. Too often, teachers of
science are inadequately trained, and there are shortages of teachers in fields
such as physics and chemistry. Enrollment in high school science coumes has
fallen. Moreover, science textbooks have been heavily criticized as covering too
many topics far too superficially. There is, as yet, no consensus on why science
should be taught, what should be taught, who should study science and how
science education can be changed.
Our youngsters are deficient in their understanding of biology, both
as a coherent discipline and as a body of knowledge. Most of them,
throughout their lives, will have little ability to relate what they may learn
about biology to the world in which they live. But this is not a failure of our
children. It is a failure of public policy to acknowledge the living realities
of biology . . . the dynamic processes of nature that course through us and
around us as creatures of the planet Earth.
If we are going to incorporate biology into the mainstream of cultural
literacy, we must think about how biology and technology interact to affect
our lives and even our survival as a species. This presents some fundamental
problems. How do we deal with the implications of an exploding body of
scientific knowledge, such as genetic engineering and the chemistry of the
brain? How can we communicate the implications of rapid developments
to large numbers of youngsters? Since the time available for instruction
cannot expand to accommodate the growth of knowledge, adjustments must
be made. What to drop and what to keep? Should we try to be all-inclusive
and contend with textbooks of 1,000 pages weighing 20 pounds, and leave it
to teachers and administrators to set priorities? And if so, will the teaching
of biologr then be rational and relevant? Is it now rational and relevant?
There is the problem of coping with our changing planet- global
warming, drought, famine, pollution of the earth and seas. We know
the epidemiology and complications of the spread of the AIDS virus.
How do we incorporate these into our learning objectives, our evaluation
procedures, our teacher training, and our texts? More important, should
these matters be made a part of the curriculum content, or should we retain
the traditional disciplinary perspective of biology?
These are questions of content that are bound up with context. I
believe that in order to determine content, we must first articulate the
OCR for page 5
OPENING ADDRESS
5
objectives of a high-school biology education. Only when we know our
objectives can we develop a strategy for implementing a curriculum.
We shall begin our panel deliberations, then, by addressing the topic
of objectives and how they are to be reflected in our evaluation procedures.
Let me start by posing some larger questions, in the hope of stimulating
and focusing our thinking.
So let us begin!
What do we want to impart to all students about factual information,
perspectives on the living world, reasoning skills, and science as a process?
How effectively can we measure the attainment of these objectives?
Do standardized tests dictate curriculum content? Are there alternative
and more sensitive measurements of achievement?
~ what extent do texts and other instructional materials drive the
curriculum? How does the teacher's own education shape his or her
teaching style and objectives?
A question that has always interested us as teachers: what is the effect
of the student's prior education on what he or she learns in the biology
course? How much biology is taught in other courses, such as health
education or earth science, and how much is learned or mislearned from
television?
How much biology should be a part of general science? If biology is
presented as a discipline, where and how will the student learn the physics
and chemistry that underlie biological phenomena?
1b what extent should biology focus on social impacts and technological
applications? In a world experiencing snowballing environmental crises,
what priority should be given to the concept of the biosphere as a life-
support system for human survival?
Should the teaching of biology be insulated from religious, political,
or social trends and values?
Of what value, if any, are out-of-classroom instruction and experiences?
Museums, zoos, botanical gardens, television documentaries, and other
formats present innovative opportunities for instruction. Do we use these
resources effectively? When we plan and evaluate the classroom experience,
should we factor in children's exposure to informal education? Or, since
science illiteracy is rampant, should we conclude that informal education is
ineffective and therefore irrelevant, and ignore it?
What does cognitive psychology have to tell us about defining our
objectives, and about strategies to achieve our objectives? By ignoring the
limitations of cognitive development on learning capacity, do we doom
ourselves to frustration, if not defeat?
Shayer and Adey (1981) in England concluded from their extensive
tests and studies that "there is a massive mismatch in secondary schools
OCR for page 6
6
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
between the expectations institutionalized in courses, textbooks and exam-
inations and the ability of children to assimilate the experiences they are
given." This issue will be addressed in one or more of our panels. How
rhea it this nrnhlPm in Or c.l~r~m~ and how can we go under.
wIlLIwA&~_~ ~ .,. ~v^_~^ a, ~_, _,_ __
around, or through learning obstacles?
And last, should the first biology course serve as a recruiting ground
for future scientists? Are we adequately serving the needs of students who
show a natural affinity for science? Are we ensuring that a new stream of
recruits move into teaching and research careers? What can special science
schools tell us about educating the talented student?
While our inquiry is wide-ranging, it cannot address all the contextual
problems in any detail. We have not scheduled sessions to deal with the
special problems of minority-group students from underprivileged back-
grounds or the differences in the educational needs of college-bound and
non-college-bound students. We also are not explicitly addressing the allo-
cation of time between biology and the other sciences or among subtopics
within biology, such as ecology; metabolism; cell, tissue, and organ sys-
tems; and plants, animals, or systematics. However, these problems are of
concern to the committee, and we hope to hear more about them in the
broader context in which biology is taught.
I would like to draw a brief picture of the historical background against
which we are undertaking our task. The biology curriculum, as we know
it, first emerged at the end of the last century. 1b this day, most texts
and curricula reflect the survey-of-the-discipline pattern established by T.
H. Huxley in 1890 in what is generally viewed as the first general biology
text (Huxley and Marten, 1892~. From the earliest years, concerned groups
and individuals have analyzed and criticized biology education. They have
struggled to define its objectives and identify appropriate instructional
strategies and materials. In a thoughtful article, "Biology Education in
the United States During the Twentieth Century," Mayer (1986) reviewed
the many major studies. Drawing on Paul DeHart Hurd's (1961) study,
Biological Education in American Public Schools, 1890-1960, Mayer tells us
that most of what we strive for in biology, education has been sought for a
very long time. A 1909 report from the High School Teachers Association
of New York supported an emphasis on applied biology and training in
living and recommended such topics as conservation, health and nutrition,
ecology, and critical thinking about biology as applied to daily life.
In 1914, a committee of the Central Association of Science and Math-
ematics Teachers set out as the purposes of science education "a knowledge
of the world of nature in relation to everyday life, and an emphasis on
career preparation and choice, on problem solving, and on a consideration
of the degree of credibility of scientific knowledge." And in 1915, a com-
mittee on natural sciences of the National Education Association stated
OCR for page 7
OPENING ADDRESS
7
such objectives as development of the powers of reasoning and observation
and acquaintance with the environment, with the structure and function of
the human body, and with biological principles arising from these studies.
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council
are no strangers to the century-long effort to improve high-school biology
education. By far the most ambitious and influential effort at improving
high-school biology education was, and is, the Biological Sciences Curricu-
lum Study (BSCS). Its history, objectives, personae and products are well
known to us. I,here are enough BSCS veterans and current activists in the
audience and on our program to ensure that the BSCS's contributions will
not be neglected in our sessions. In fact, before our committee members
write their report and make recommendations for curriculum content, they
might do well to review the themes that pervaded all BSCS textbooks (yel-
low, green, blue, and those unwritten) and to determine whether any of
these need to be amended, replaced, or augmented:
Change of living things through time: evolution.
Diversity of type and unity of pattern among living things.
The genetic continuity of life.
Growth and development in the individual's life.
The complementarily of structure and function.
Regulation and homeostasis: the preservation of life in the face of
change.
The complementarily of organisms and environment.
The biological basis of behavior.
The nature of scientific inquiry.
The intellectual history of biological concepts.
And one more, added by current BSCS Director Joseph McInerney (1987~:
Relationship between science and society.
Before we address these themes, we must ask why the impact of BSCS
diminishes and student performance continues to decline in the face of
excellent instructional material prepared and field-tested by teachers and
scientists who were guided by widely endorsed objectives. Mayer (1986)
points out some of the problems: Despite the resounding triumph of the
BSCS effort adoption by over half the nation's school districts, improved
student performance, textbook sales in the millions, adaptations by 14 for-
eign countries the sad truth is that there is resistance and resentment by
the publishing community, by much of the professional academic education
community, by many teachers who were unprepared to meet the demands
of these new curricula, and by other institutional entities to this brave new
OCR for page 8
!
8
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
approach. Guided by Mayer's analysis of the impediments to implemen-
tation of BSCS biology, we will spend a substantial portion of time on
strategies for removing institutional barriers.
Implementation, however, becomes a problem only when we have
something to implement. So let us think creatively about our task of
redefining or restating high-school biology objectives.
Knowledge about the living world and how it works is growing at an
increasing rate while humankind's scientific literacy is falling behind. At
the same time, our biotic kingdom is deteriorating. The last summer was
calamitous. All along our northeast coast, medical waste and coliform
bacteria contaminated the beaches. Algal blooms alter marine life. Toxic
gases choke our cities. Drought and heat destroyed millions of acres of
forests and crops. Was this a statistical blip or part of a pattern of global
warming resulting from ozone depletion? We ask ourselves, is nature
striking back? Have we exceeded our planet's ability to absorb our abuse?
Is the booming global population, with its exponential consumption of
energy and production of waste, threatening life as we know it?
If life as we know it is threatened, we must examine every aspect of
our human behavior for its impact on nature. Nature must be protected,
not only for its own sake, but so that in turn it can continue to support
human life.
Should the biology curriculum not be seen in that context? Should we
not be teaching the biology of survival on the basis of ecology, including
human ecology?
In The Thanatos Syndrome, novelist WaLker Pergy (1987) has his hero
observe that "this is not the age of enlightenment but the age of not
knowing what to do." Not knowing what to do Is no excuse for concluding
that we can do nothing. We cannot sit by helplessly while biology education
continues to fall short of the demands we can and must put on it to address
our planet's integrity. We must not give In to despair, but must keep trying
to find out what to do. Harold Horowitz, member of the NRC's Board on
Biology, which is overseeing our study, is fond of saying, "Optimism is a
moral imperative." So let us now, with optimism, get on with the task of
figuring out what to do.
REFERENCES
Education Commission of the States. 1988. The Impact of State Policies on Improving
Science Curriculum. Denver, Colo.
Hurd, P. D. 1961. Biological Education in American Public Schools, 1890-1960. Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Biological Sciences.
Huxley, ~ H., and H. N. Marten. 1892. (Rev.) Practical Biology. London: Macmillan.
OCR for page 9
OPENING ADDRESS
9
Mayer, W. 1986. Biology education in the United States during the twentieth century.
Quart. Rev. Biol. 61:481-507.
McInerney, J. D. 1987. Curriculum Development at the Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study. Educ. Leader. 44~4~:24-28. December 1986/Janua~y 1987.
Percy, ~ 1987. The Thanatos Syndrome. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Shayer, M., and P. Adey. 1981. Towards a Science of Science Teaching. Curriculum
development and curriculum demand. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
OCR for page 10
Changing Conceptions of the Learner:
Implications for Biology Teaching
AUDREY B. CHAMPAGNE
A quarter-century has elapsed since the scientific community last
turned its attention to school science. The overriding concern of aca-
demic scientists is that once again the content of school science Is out
of date. Indeed, major developments have occurred in the sciences that
are not yet reflected in science textbooks. However, simply updating the
content will not adequately raise the quality of school science or signifi-
cantly improve America's scientific literacy. Attaining these goals requires
attention to the nature of Instruction, as well as the content of the school
science curriculum. As we turn our thoughts to the future of high-school
biology, we must not lose sight of the fact that in the last 25 years other
significant changes have occurred that should determine in large measure
how the new science Is taught and whether it Is learned. Among these
changes are several that should guide our thinking about the nature of
science instruction.
Of the many factors that should influence instruction, none Is so
Audrey B. Champagne, senior program director in the office of Science and Technology Educa-
tion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (ALAS), directs the National
Forum for School Science and the Project on Liberal Education and the Sciences. Dr. Cham-
pagne was a senior scientist and project director at the Learning Research and Development
Center and research professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh before joining AAAS
in July 1984. She holds a B.S. and M.S. in chemistry from the State University of New York,
Albany, an Ed.M. in science education from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in education from
the University of Pittsburgh.
10
OCR for page 11
CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF THE LEARNER
11
important as the learner. Young people's school-related behaviors are
determined by social and psychological factors, which determine what they
will learn. Society's values are one of the factors that influence young
people's attitudes toward education and learning science. In a nation that
values cars, clothes, and cocaine more than learning, it is not surprising
that many of our high-school students spend more time at their part-time
jobs than on their homework
Beyond the influence of social values on students' attitudes toward
education and learning in general, social values exert profound influence
on science learning. The overt manifestations of society's values are public
attitudes toward science that are a study in contradictions. At a time
when states are mandating more science credits for high-school graduation,
society is delivering a contradictory message to American youth regarding
the value of studying science. While Americans value the many ways
in which science has improved their lives, they are becoming increasingly
concerned by environmental degradation and troubled by the difficult moral
and ethical choices science places on them. These concerns contribute to
negative public attitudes toward science. These negative attitudes are
reinforced by the ways in which scientists are portrayed in the media.
Many young people have never had personal contact with a scientist.
They get their image from the media, which portray scientists as nerds in
white laboratory coats with thick glasses who relentlessly pursue science,
neglecting family and personal needs. This unappealing image turns young
people from science.
Society's image of the scientist presents an even more serious problem
for young women, Hispanics, and blacks. Society's perception that science
and technology professions are the purview of the white male leads these
young people to conclude that science is either socially unacceptable or
intellectually unattainable to them. This perception pervades schools and
science classrooms, where circumstances in this regard have not changed
significantly since I was in junior high school and the science club was
for boys only. Idday, the message is delivered in more subtle ways- for
example, girls don't get called on or answer questions as much as boys in
science-but the message is effective.
These comments only touch the surface of the impact of social factors
on students' opportunity to learn science and on their choices to study
it. There is evidence that for young people from some subpopulations,
black and Hispanic in particular, there is a mismatch between the modes
of thought of their culture and those of science. In addition, the modes
of teaching and learning that these youth experience in the home direr
from the modes that they experience in their schools (Cohen, 1986~. Such
factors as these are social in origin, but have implications for science
learning. Science teachers expect that all entering students have the same
OCR for page 32
32
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
1b return more specifically to the topic at hand, I believe that the
biology curriculum should concentrate on fundamental principles. The
examples should illustrate these principles, but the most Important goal
should be to impart a basic understanding that can then be applied to a host
of similar biological problems. For example, there is very strong evidence
that, in some patients, an inherited, therefore genetic, susceptibility is an
important predisposing factor in the development of both malignant and
nonmalignant diseases. It is now possible in many families to distinguish
between individuals who are at risk and those not at risk How did this
come about? The story of this discovery provides a forum for describing
principles, as well as specific examples.
HUMAN DISEASES AS EXAMPLES IN BIOLOGY
Let me illustrate the goal of achieving a basic understanding of biolog-
ical principles by going back to my major premise that there are so many
exciting discoveries in medicine today that you can use them to illustrate
any principle you wish to teach. I will pick just a limited area, one that
I know something about, namely, the molecular analysis of human genes.
Let us take colon cancer, which is of most concern to older individuals,
who are at the greatest risk and who, of course, left high school long ago.
These older people are grandmothers and grandfathers or great-aunts and
great-uncles; thus, most children know someone or know of someone who
has this disease.
DNA as Carrier of Genetic Information
A discussion of colon cancer provides us with a reason to discuss
DNA as the carrier of information about how and when cells are to
perform certain functions and to explain the notion that this information is
contained in discrete units called genes. Some genes are defective before
birth, and children who have such genes are born with malformations or
with cells and tissues that do not function in the normal way. The ill effects
of other genes become apparent only later in life. For those of us who
inherit a predisposition to certain malignant diseases, it is possible to find
the location of the responsible genes using modern techniques. The basis
for these statements is reviewed in McKusisk (1988~.
Use of Enzymes for Study of DNA
The next concept required for an understanding of genetic analysis is
that DNA can be cut in quite specific places by enzymes that recognize
the pattern of the elements making up DNA (Alberta et al., in press). The
OCR for page 33
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION IN MEDICINE
33
pattern or sequence of these elements in a particular gene (I am referring
here to the nucleotides or DNA bases) may be the same in many different
individuals. The DNA from these individuals, when cut into pieces by a
particular enzyme and placed in a gelatin slab in an electric current, will
give a fragment of identical size when probed with the appropriate gene.
Other individuals may have differences in the sequence of DNA bases that
are unimportant for gene function, and this may lead to gain or loss of the
specific sites cut by the same enzyme. This results in changes in the size of
the DNA fragment when it is subjected to an electric current in the gelatin.
These changes are DNA polymorphisms, called restriction-fragment-length
polymorphisms (RFIPs, or riflips), and they are the basis for much of
modern genetic-linkage analysis, especially in humans.
Genetic Linkage
The next concept is that of the linkage of genes and the linkage of DNA
probes with genes in cases in which we have not yet identified or cloned
the critical gene itself. In fact, this is the situation for many diseases which
have been linked with DNA sequences or genes. One can establish the
association of specific polymorphisms with a disease in a particular family
and then analyze the DNA from a particular individual, to determine the
likelihood that the individual is at risk for the disease.
Genetic Analysis of Colon Cancer
I will use the recent studies on colon cancer to illustrate the principles I
have just described and their application. As a cytogeneticist, I am especially
pleased, as I describe this research, to point out that the initial clue to the
chromosomal location of one of these genes came from the study of
the chromosomes of a patient with a rare disease that predisposes to colon
cancer. This patient had a deletion involving the long arm of chromosome 5,
and he had familial polyposis. A report describing this patient was published
by Herrera et al. (1986~. Ray White and his colleagues in Salt Lake City
(Leppert et al., 1987) and Walter Bodmer and his associates in London
(1987) recognized the potential usefulness of this information, because
the location of the other cancer-related genes had already been identified
through their association with specific chromosomal abnormalities. 1b
determine whether familial polyposis was associated with the abnormality
of chromosome 5, both groups used pieces of DNA that were known to
be polymorphic and that were mapped to this region of chromosome 5.
Then they asked, "Are any of these DNA markers linked to the gene for
polyposis in families in which a number of individuals in several generations
had colon cancer and from whom DNA was available for analysis?" The
OCR for page 34
34
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
answer was yes; at least one DNA marker was closely linked to familial
polyposis.
The next step was to look at DNA obtained from colon cancers in the
general population. Ellen Solomon, an associate of Walter Bodmer, and
co-workers (1987) showed by using the same marker probe that the tumor
cells in up to 40% of colon cancers had a loss of genes on chromosome
5. These results have been confirmed by a recent study. This study was
a collaborative effort of Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins Medical Center
in Baltimore, Ray White in Salt Lake City, and Johannes Bos in the
Netherlands and their colleagues (Vogelstein et al., 1988~. This illustrates
the increasing complexity of research, which requires the collaboration
of scientists with a variety of skills, often on different continents. Their
report describes a complex analysis of 172 colorectal tumor specimens,
including those that were premalignant, as well as frank cancers. The
different laboratories used DNA probes for genes on three chromosomes,
5, 17, and 18; they also analyzed tumors for mutations in one of the
cancer gene or proto-oncogene families, namely, the RAS genes. They
observed the loss of genes from one or several chromosomes in 25-50%
of all the tumors (adenomas and carcinomas) studied. Forty percent of all
tumors had a mutation in a RAS gene. Their most important observation
was that there is a correlation between the degree of malignancy and the
number of genetic (usually chromosomal) changes in the cells. Thus, at
least one genetic change was detected in only about 25% of very small
polyps, compared with 92% of carcinomas. These data provide evidence
that the ONA changes that were monitored in this study are likely to be
important ones, each of which contributes to a more malignant and more
aggressive phenotype.
We know from experimental studies that several changes are required
in different genes for a normal cell to change to a fully malignant one. The
data in this colon-cancer study show that at least four genes can contribute
to the development of a cancer cell. It is quite likely that additional
genes will be identified in the future. In this study, the investigators
found evidence of a sequence of changes, but it was not an invariant
sequence. Thus, when they were identified at all, RAS gene mutations
and deletion of chromosome 5 occurred during an early, less-malignant
stage, whereas a deletion of chromosome 18 followed later, and deletion of
chromosome 17 later still. In some patients, deletions were detected only
in the middle of the affected chromosome. Mapping the region of deletion
provided information on the probable location of the important gene on
each chromosome.
These studies on colon cancer are more sophisticated than those
reported for lung or breast cancer, because multiple DNA changes in pairs
of tumor and normal tissues from the same patient were analyzed. This
OCR for page 35
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION IN MEDICINE
35
is just an example of studies that will be described over the next decade.
Certainly, future investigations will be even more complex.
As I have already indicated, similar types of analyses are in progress
covering a wide range of inherited human diseases, both diseases that
result from a mutation in a single gene (for example, cystic fibrosis or
sickle-cell anemia) and diseases that result from the interaction of several
genes (such as coronary arterial disease or stroke). If American citizens
are to comprehend how they can apply this new information to themselves
or to their families, they must have an adequate education in biology.
THE HUMAN GENOME MAPPING PROJECT
I have not touched on another compelling reason for emphasizing
genetics in teaching biology. I am referring to mapping and sequencing
the human genome, which will be a major commitment in biology for
the next 2 decades (National Research Council, 1988~. For biology, this
project is comparable to our space program or to our efforts in high-energy
physics. Its cost over this period is estimated to be greater than $3 billion,
$200,000,000 a year for 15 years. It would be very helpful if the public were
sufficiently educated to understand the benefits of such a commitment. In
a time of increasingly limited resources, hard choices must be made. Will
members of the public support the level of funding required for successful
mapping and sequencing of the human genome if they cannot appreciate
its value to them and their families?
The report of the National Reseach Council committee stressed that
this project would "greatly enhance progress in human biology and medi-
cine." Although the technology for accomplishing this immense task in
an efficient and cost-effective manner is not yet available, the committee's
recommendations are to develop a more complete physical map of the
chromosomes; then to proceed with sequencing of genes that are function-
ing, that are expressed in cells; and finally to sequence the pieces of DNA
that are between these genes. You will recognize that keeping track of 3
billion nucleotides is a major data management problem that will require
substantial improvements in computers and computer programs. This will
become increasingly essential as scientists wish to compare different genes
to learn more about the correlation between the DNA sequence of a gene
and its functional components. Moreover, it has been proposed that paral-
lel projects to sequence the genomes of other species mouse, Drosophila,
etc. be undertaken at the same time. This will allow scientists to compare
the DNA sequences, but perhaps more importantly the organization of
genes for the same protein in different species, to achieve an increased
understanding of the relationship between the structure of a gene and its
function. This information will also provide additional insights into the
OCR for page 36
36
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
changes that occur with evolution. Again, a major increase in computer
capabilities will be required to make these comparisons in an efficient and
effective manner.
Of course, there Is concern about the social, legal, and ethical impli-
cations of such a project. It is recognized that this project "could provide
a great deal of new knowledge about the genetic basis of human disease.
However, the effects of that knowledge will be highly colored by the ways its
practical Implications are interpreted" (National Research Council, 1988,
p. 101~.
CONCLUSION
I have tried to give examples of the progress being made In medicine
today and to show how the teaching of a few general principles can provide
a framework for students to understand many of the new discoveries in
genetics. It will not be easy to help students achieve the necessary level
of such an understanding. However, I believe that they can appreciate
the importance of this knowledge and that this appreciation, provided by
enthusiastic teachers and first-rate instructional material, will lead to a
better-educated and more-~nformed American public.
REFERENCES
Alberts, B., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. D. Watson. In press. Molecular
Biology of the Cell. 2nd ed. New York: Garland.
Bodmer, W. F., C. J. Bailey, J. Bodmer, H. J. R. Bussey, A. Ellis, P. Gorman, F. C. Lucibello,
V. ~ Murday, S. H. Rider, P. Scambler, D. Sheer, E. Solomon, and N. K. Spurr.
1987. Localization of the gene for familial adenomatous polyposis on chromosome 5.
Nature 328:614-616.
Herrera, L., S. Kakati, ~ Gibas, E. Piet~zak, and A. A. Sandberg. 1986. Brief clinical
report: Gardner syndrome in a man with an interstitial deletion of 5q. Amer. J. Med.
Genet. 25:473-476.
Leppert, M., M. Dobbs, P. Scambler, P. O'Connell, Y. Nakamura, D. Stau~er, S. Woodward,
R. Burt, I. Hughes, E. Gardner, M. Lathrop, J. Wasmuth, J.-M. Lalouel, and R. White.
1987. The gene for familial polyposis cold maps to the long arm of chromosome 5.
Science 238:1411-1413.
McKusick, V. ~ 1988. The Morbid Anatomy of the Human Genome: A Review of Gene
Mapping in Clinical Medicine. Bethesda, Md.: Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
National Research Council. 1988. Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. Washing-
ton: D.C.: National Academy Press.
Solomon E., R. Voss, V. Hall, W. F. Bodmer, J. R. Jass, A. J. Jeffreys, F. C. Lucibello,
I. Patel, and S. H. Rider. 1987. Chromosome 5 allele loss in human colorectal
carcinomas. Nature 328:616-619.
Vogelstein, B., E. R. Fearon, S. R. Hamilton, S. E. Kern, A. C. Preisinger, M. Leppert,
Y. Nakamura, R. White, ~ M. M. Smits, and J. ~ Bos. 1988. Genetic alterations
during colorectal-tumor development. New Engl. J. Med. 319:525-532.
OCR for page 37
6
High-School Biology Training:
A Prospective Employer's View
HARVEY S. SADOW
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM
I do not teach biology at the high-school or any other level, nor do
I now have a certificate to teach anything, including biology. I have not
engaged in biological research for roughly 20 years. I am certainly not a
specialist in, nor even more than perhaps modestly informed about, cur-
riculum In high-school biology. Finally, my days as an educator are so far In
the dim and distant past that I really cannot claim more than "having been.
. . ." Thus, having completely destroyed my credibility by acknowledging
my lack of credentials, I will demonstrate my temerity by talking about
high-school biology education today, but especially today In the face of
tomorrow's needs, as an employer of a large body of research scientists,
physicians, and technicians without advanced or collegiate education.
You may justifiably ask why I am here, having obviously admitted my
limitations; to that the answer must be that I have a concern about the
teaching of the scientific disciplines, such as biology, in our high-school
programs. I am compelled, however, In that concern by the recognition of
Hanrey S. Sadow is chairman of the board of Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation and its for-
mer chief executive officer and president. He is a member of the board of the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association and chairman of the board of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers As-
sociation Foundation. Dr. Sadow is also president of the Connecticut Academy of Science and
Engineering. He received a B.S. from the Virginia Military Institute, where he senres on the
board of visitors; an M.S. from the University of Kansas; and a Ph.D. from the University of
Connecticut.
37
OCR for page 38
38
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
another trend that forces the issue. The United States, for many reasons,
has passed rapidly in the last 2 decades from a pre-eminently manufacturing
economy to one of service. If the United States is to regain its pre-eminent
position in the production-technological areas, it must commit itself to
enhanced scientific innovation, which, of course, means the stimulation
of the evolution, and conversion to practice, of new ideas. As has been
said about the manufacturing economies of many states, including my own
Connecticut, in a changing, competitive world, it is necessary to innovate
or die at least on the economic limb!
Another fact is increasingly inescapable, and it is brought home daily
in our experience in western Connecticut, where the company I have led is.
There is a significant and growing shortage of technically qualified or even
trainable labor, which seriously threatens the innovative high-technology
R&D and manufacturing components of our company.
Dr. Handler, in her opening remarks, cited the observations of Arm-
strong and co-workers (the Education Commission of the States) concerning
the relatively poor American student achievement in scientific education,
compared with that of other developed countries, emphasizing that science
instruction has had a low priority; the teachers of science are inadequately
trained; there are teacher shortages in certain basic scientific fields, accom-
panied by a decline in the enrollment of high-school students in science
courses and, among other things, the lack even of a consensus as to why
science should be taught, what should be taught, and to whom, and thus,
how the process can be changed. Perhaps even more troubling than the
reference to Armstrong et al. was the statement that these young people
are deficient in their understanding of biology as a "coherent discipline."
Reference has been made to both public and political failure to acknowl-
edge, or perhaps even create public policy concerning, educational realities,
as in the field of biology. Then again, American mores and attitudes have
changed over the years since the end of World War II. Discipline, especially
self-discipline, seems to have evaporated in the process of developing young
people. Is it any wonder that the undisciplined would, of necessity, seek
to avoid the strict disciplines of either the physical or the natural sciences,
especially if there are easier ways to get high-school diplomas? The prob-
lem, therefore, of attracting the interest of these young minds to the field
of biology, and keeping it, is one of the reasons for this conference.
SHOULD BIOLOGY BE TAUGIIT IN HIGH SCHOOL?
The answer for me is unequivocally `'Yes!" Biology is no longer simply
a descriptive field in the range of the natural sciences. It has, just in the
last 10-20 years, changed to a vibrant, dynamic multidiscipline, which has
invaded chemistry, physics, mathematics, and indeed even the technologies
OCR for page 39
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY TRAINING
39
of engineering, especially electronics. It seems to me that the important
subordinate questions suggested by Dr. Handler, which must also be asked,
include: "A Whom?" "What?" And perhaps even precedent to these
questions, "Why?" I will try, from the prospective employer's point of
view, to answer.
WHO SIlALL BE TAUGHT? AND WHY?
Young minds if they are to benefit from the explosion of new infor-
mation, which will certainly, in some way, touch everyone's life-must be
prepared to adapt, early on, to the present dynamism of biology. That dy-
namism, of necessity, directly influences biology education. That adaptive
preparation must be based on the soundest possible foundation of basic
knowledge and understanding of biology as the basic science of life itself.
I believe that today, in most high schools, there is at least one required
course in "general science." This affords an initial exposure, however su-
perficial, to very basic information on the nature of living things. Obviously
(at least to me), it would be preferable to offer a basic course in biology
as a scientific discipline to all whose interest in the field may have been
stimulated either by such a basic science course or, if none were available,
by reading, by advice from career guidance counselors, or by completion
of courses, particularly in basic chemistry or physics. Of course, prior basic
knowledge in- physics and chemistry would be highly desirable to ensure a
better understanding of the processes and mechanisms prevailing in living
organisms.
1b those young people who may be college-bound, I would "sell" the
virtue of the study of basic biology, as well as chemistry and physics, as an
assurance of doing better, earlier, in the college-level study of these sciences.
those students not headed for college who show any aptitude for the
scientific disciplines, I would also "sell" the study of biology as fundamental
job preparation, especially for technician jobs. Even if the student shows no
aptitude for biology as a scientific discipline, study of the subject might still
be encouraged, if only for the awareness and understanding it can afford of
basic life processes seen or experienced day by day throughout one's life.
Even though the interests and goals of high-school students are not all
the same, it should be possible to bring home the fact that in the study of
biology, there is something for everyone.
WIlAT SI-IOULD BE TAUGHT?
Now, the answers get a bit stickier. What will be taught depends on who
will be taught. In a sense, we are dealing with divergent populations: the
college-bound, including those who will seek only undergraduate degrees,
OCR for page 40
40
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
with or without a major in biology or any other scientific discipline, and
those who will ultimately pursue biological science-related professional
degrees and careers; and the non-college-bound, whose exposure, if any,
to biology as an academic pursuit will be an isolated or terminal one and
who may or may not find jobs in biological science-related fields possible,
but who, if they do, will receive further on-thejob technical training in
industry, clinical laboratories, or other workplaces.
Should all those divergent student populations be taught the same way?
The answer must obviously be `'yes." All, regardless of direction of later
pursuits, would benefit from a few essential basics in biology education.
To my way of thinking and experience, these essentials might include the
following:
.
An understanding of the structure and function of living organisms;
thus, fundamental life processes, regardless of form.
· Application of that understanding of life processes to things seen
in the world around us.
· An understanding of the "scientific method" and its application.
· Learning by doing simple biology laboratory procedures, not only
to enhance hands-on experience, but also to develop basic manipulative
skills.
These basics, to which I am sure others might be added, should be
taught to all high-school students without regard for the post-high-school
education or work intentions. For the future college students, they will
provide foundations for the next stage of the learning process, as intended.
Good and sound curricula taught by motivated and adequately trained
teachers should open young minds to the opportunities in the biological
sciences, and especially to the value of at least basic biology education and
to the appreciation of how things around us are affected by disturbances in
the balances of life processes (e.g., environmental pollution, disease, and
atmospheric change, to name just a few). High-school biology education can
encourage the uncertain student of certain potential to begin to discriminate
and thus choose previously unknown or unappreciated further foci in later
education and ultimate career pursuit. For the fortunate young person
who always knew what he or she wanted to do, in the areas founded on
or related to biological sciences, high-school biology educational exposure
may prove to be the first real confirmation of the wisdom-or even lack
thereof of that presumption.
Of course, for the student motivated to pursue some career-related
interest in biology, additional material, probably closer to applications of
the science, might, given the institutional resources, be offered but in
advanced courses. Thus, one could foresee course work in the principles
and applications of genetics, as in zoology, botany, biotechnology (DNA
OCR for page 41
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY TRAINING
41
manipulation), and environment as a biological entity. The list is much
longer and might even include, with caution, societal concerns with biology.
However, the issue here might be how much is enough or too much.
I say that, because of the evident mismatch between expectations and
capacities, both individual and institutional, with which everyone in high-
school education must live.
Returning to the view of the issue that I hold as a prospective employer,
the college-bound are of less immediate concern in relation to high-school
biology training. Except for adequacy of preparation to receive more
education in biology, the young person leaving college will, it is hoped,
have already gone beyond basics and thus be ready for a position, even
if of limited scope or responsibility, in research, development, or related
biological technology at the technician or more advanced level.
What about the non-college-bound students? Regardless of the rea-
sons for that decision, whether they are economic or social, let us assume
some capacity to learn, absorb, and even apply basic high-school biology
training. We have found that with good basic biology education, these
youngsters can quickly grasp principles and practice in a typical biochem-
istry, toxicology, physiology, or even pharmacology research laboratory or
biological quality-control or clinical-assay laboratory. The quick absorption
and understanding of a technician's work, thanks to high-school biology
training, helps to make these young people productive economic contrib-
utors to their jobs when receiving on-thejob training. That means earlier
advancement and better job opportunities, albeit at technician levels. For
some, however, on-thejob training has reinforced interest in biological sci-
ence as a career; and, family circumstances permitting, it has encouraged
at least a few to seek higher education as an assurance of the achievement
of greater biology-related career goals.
Observation of weaknesses in high-school biology training for these
students usually illuminates two prime areas:
· Inadequate manipulative training and thus limited laboratory pro-
cedural sldlls.
Little or no real knowledge of scientific methods or their applica
tion.
CONCLUSION
Having made these views known, I should say that I recognize that
probably everything that I have said here has been said before, many
times. As in the educational process itself, however, repetition can lead to
recognition, to acceptance, and to ultimate action. Biology, once the "easy"
science in high school, and even in our colleges, is now both the foundation
and the capstone for some of the greatest advances in our understanding
OCR for page 42
42
HIGH-SCHOOL BIOLOGY
of life processes in health and disease and thus of our capacity to intervene
successfully and restore balance. Ib my mind, therefore, it is our obligation
to lay solid foundations of basic knowledge, and thus understanding of life
processes, in the high-school setting, so that our young citizens may benefit,
as fully as their individual capacities permit, from our progress in this field.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
colon cancer
