'useful' science education

edanto

So, any of ye done a biotech degree?

From the course I did a few years ago, a lot of people are working in areas other than science and I'm wondering if we could have done more interesting and useful subjects at the expense of some of the really detailed (rote-learning type) subjects.

What I'm proposing is that if we had done modules in things like communication skills, critical thinking, ethics, history/philosophy of science etc. then we might be well, more interested in science generally and probably in a better way to deal with the science we come across in the media and life generally.

Any thoughts?

Capt'n Midnight

DCU / UCD / Other ?

The other courses you could have done yourself at the local college at night or open university - you still can. Spending the time on genetic engineering which is something you can't really do any other way seems better.

How many people in biotech need media skills ?
How can you finish a 4 year course and NOT be interested in science ?
There is probably a library full of stuff if you looked for it, New Scientist being a nice overview of whats going on and the book reviews are worth noting in case you find the books later on.

The ethical issues only apply to some areas and even then don't compare to those in medicine or other course where they are in the syllabus. You say that many people did not stay in the area, in such cases the golden rule probably applies.


Biotech - the industry of the future, for as long as I can remember.

edanto

Cap'n,

I wasn't trying to say that I'm not interested in science - I love it and work hard at it. My point is that some skills could be done at an entry level (things like communications/ethics) that would give people a better understanding of science as a whole.

For the communications, it seems like most biosciences courses cover only basic writing skills and token amount of oral presentation. These skills are too important in science for them only to be touched on. For example, most modern research teams are interdisciplinary and it's critical to be able to explain your problems to a scientist that might have a different background. All these biotech companies that are (hopefully) starting need to be able to sell themselves to bean counters.

And the ethics... well most of the biotech in the media is ethically complex, things like stem cell research, GM food or genetic tests. This is the biotech that people talk about and people on the biotech courses should be able to explain a few sides of each argument if their friends ask them about it. I'm full sure that this is such an important part of biotech that it's short sighted not to examine the ethical issues in depth on a biotech course.

Practically, if some one is going to study biotech for four years and then work in a particular area - there's going to be a lot of the course they don't use, for example some engineering or biochemistry detail. The ethics and communications skills would be valuable to everyone and I think they're important to bring on to our third level courses.

Of course, something would have to go and that's where I'm a bit wondersome. What parts of a biotech degree can we trim to make room for the above?

nesf

The best way I've heard it phrased is this.

There are two conflicting rights in academics.

The lecturer's right to teach.

The student's right to learn.

In the modern system of education, the second one is ignored at undergraduate level.

I'm not going to rant about this, but if anyone feels like arguing this with me...

Son Goku

nesf wrote:

The best way I've heard it phrased is this.

There are two conflicting rights in academics.

The lecturer's right to teach.

The student's right to learn.

In the modern system of education, the second one is ignored at undergraduate level.

I'm not going to rant about this, but if anyone feels like arguing this with me...

Undergraduate level is terrible in Maynooth at least.
An average physics degree teaches you vectors twelve times.

nesf

Son Goku wrote:

Undergraduate level is terrible in Maynooth at least.
An average physics degree teaches you vectors twelve times.

The attitude in UCC was more, hey, you guys are smart (they culled the class from over 100 to under 20 after first year for the honours course) you can figure out the maths as we go along. (Depending on the lecturer)

It was insane at times. We were using tensors without ever touching on the theory behind them at one point. That was, as you know, insane. Tensors could be a topic for an entire course, and they'd still not be treated with fully. We got half a lecture on the idea behind them..... :eek:

edanto

nesf wrote:

they culled the class from over 100 to under 20 after first year for the honours course

Something similar happened on my course. A shedload of people left the course over the few years - most of them transferred into some other course like business or a different science. Many left science altogether.

For those that left science, would it be safe to say that some of them weren't been taught something that they were interested in?
Knowing the people that left our biotech course, a lot of them were pretty into science - they'd picked it at college after all - and might have been more interested in a general science subject that covered areas like current science news, ethical implications of science, the science/society relationship. I would have picked it in first year if I had the choice.

I was only when I started a science communication course that I found those subjects and they would have interested me from day one. Course, clearly I'm into that kindof stuff, so I'm wondering would any of you have chosen a course like that in first or second year?

Son Goku

nesf wrote:

The attitude in UCC was more, hey, you guys are smart (they culled the class from over 100 to under 20 after first year for the honours course) you can figure out the maths as we go along. (Depending on the lecturer)

It was insane at times. We were using tensors without ever touching on the theory behind them at one point. That was, as you know, insane. Tensors could be a topic for an entire course, and they'd still not be treated with fully. We got half a lecture on the idea behind them..... :eek:

Our's is more:
Here's some more maths, but don't worry you don't need to know it.
In fact you don't need to know anything. All you have to do is know a bunch of really dumbed down material.
Heck, even if you don't know that you can pass by compensation.
And if you don't do even that we'll give you another chance.

The degrees are really badly organised so you don't really do the degree you signed up for until third year.
I learned stuff in advance because I thought it was going to be hard.
Then I realised it was quite the polar opposite.

nesf

Son Goku wrote:

Our's is more:
Here's some more maths, but don't worry you don't need to know it.
In fact you don't need to know anything. All you have to do is know a bunch of really dumbed down material.
Heck, even if you don't know that you can pass by compensation.
And if you don't do even that we'll give you another chance.

The degrees are really badly organised so you don't really do the degree you signed up for until third year.
I learned stuff in advance because I thought it was going to be hard.
Then I realised it was quite the polar opposite.

UCC's physics department had a reputation for being very very elitist. People used to be expected to do at least a double honours and a triple honours was an option. This was like 10+ years ago, long before my time. It used to be that 2 or 3 people would graduate from the course....

Old habits die hard. Although they've changed the degree since my days, it's easier on the students now I believe. The learning curve isn't as steep in some areas.

ISAW

edanto wrote:

Cap'n,

I wasn't trying to say that I'm not interested in science - I love it and work hard at it. My point is that some skills could be done at an entry level (things like communications/ethics) that would give people a better understanding of science as a whole.

I would advocate history and philosophy of science to scientists.
at undergrad level in TCD there is a think called the "Broad curriculum" under which this might be done.
TCD do an MSc in Sciencd Education (mainly geared at teachers) and DCU do an MA in Science Journalism and I think also in Science Communication.

For the communications, it seems like most biosciences courses cover only basic writing skills and token amount of oral presentation. These skills are too important in science for them only to be touched on. For example, most modern research teams are interdisciplinary and it's critical to be able to explain your problems to a scientist that might have a different background.

i would aslo advocate business presentation/teamwork skills. these skills dont apply to business alone and all undergrads should be able to present and work in teams. Thats takes up much of the time in modern course design. the slats are there. One could blame bad teachers or suystem. Most lab work can be cogging the right answers and method and not doing much hands on or teamwork. It would not be difficult to design tasks which require or benefit from co operative behaviour.

All these biotech companies that are (hopefully) starting need to be able to sell themselves to bean counters.

therein lies another problem. technology turned batteries of adding accountants into analysis experts with presentation graphics and spreadsheets. But many, nay most of them do not understand science. Furthermore really good scientists might not be able to communicate their work very well and scientists (even neglicting a minority who are also good communicators ) hardly get into policy making positions.

And the ethics... well most of the biotech in the media is ethically complex, things like stem cell research, GM food or genetic tests. This is the biotech that people talk about and people on the biotech courses should be able to explain a few sides of each argument if their friends ask them about it. I'm full sure that this is such an important part of biotech that it's short sighted not to examine the ethical issues in depth on a biotech course.

all science postgrads should have to produce a one page press release on their research. Hell they have to learn to write an abstract all they have to do is lie about the implications of it!

Of course, something would have to go and that's where I'm a bit wondersome. What parts of a biotech degree can we trim to make room for the above?

The wasted bits where the practicals are giving scant practical experience and replacing the "results" bit with a "press conference"?

Wendified

Looks like someone has to stick up for maynooth undergrad degrees. The new BSc in Biological sciences is the way to go on all the issues that have been raised.

We had an entire module on scientific communication, one on bioethics/biotechnology plus you get the option to study an arts subject for a year (I picked philosophy.) This and lots more. Also not at the expense of other modules, as we cover approx half of the next years cirriculum in advance.

So really, if you don't look into degree courses in detail, it's your own fault if you go for a course that doesn't interest you. As for physics in maynooth - a denominated degree in astrophysics will be far from boring. It is what you make of it at the end of the day

edanto

Wendified wrote:

We had an entire module on scientific communication, one on bioethics/biotechnology plus you get the option to study an arts subject for a year (I picked philosophy.) This and lots more.

Sounds like a great choice to have at the start of a course. I wish I had it years ago!

Also, I'm really with what ISAW was saying about the histories/philosophy of science. I'm thinking that you could cover loads of diverse topics in ethics and the scientific method by having a module that looked at case studies of science. 'science histories' if you like. Anyways it's part of an idea that I'm gonna be working on over the summer - for a masters project (science communication).

Back to the 'science histories' module for first years. It could bring in some of the group work stuff that ISAW was talking about. Different groups could report on case studies like the Darwin's work, Galileo's or even stem cell research and take questions from the class about the implications/lessons of each.

nesf was saying about the two different drivers for what gets learnt at university. Well, a module like that might put the students more in charge of the kind of skills that they learnt - they could choose the aspects they reported on. The work of researching and reporting/presenting could be shared between the group based on their own strengths.

Back to my master project, I'm collecting course curricula from all the bioscience courses in the country to see what gets taught at the moment. I'd be glad to hear of more comments like Wendified's to fill me on the learning experiences that might not be obvious from the brochures.