Stages of Science Evolution Part I

I was giving a final exam in my graduate class yesterday and elected to use the time to clear up some of the items in my to-read pile.  Near the top was the May issue of "The Scientist".  The magazine is described as being for life scientist, but even an organic chemist like me can find in every issue at least one item of interest.  In the current issue there was an article titled, "Evolution of Science" about a 2009 article from Trends in Biochemical Sciences by Alexander Shneider.

Shneider's article is rather interesting.  It reminds one of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which Shneider does make note of.  He builds an argument for there being four stages of development of a scientific discipline and four stages of scientists.  Mismatches of stages of scientist and science, or stages of grant or paper author and stage of reviewer can result in problems staying in the field or with getting funded or published.

Stage one is a conceptual idea stage where someone sees something not previously recognized and adds new objects or phenomena to the discipline.  In stage two, new methods and techniques are developed to move the new discipline forward.  Stage three is where most academic scientists reside and where new methods and techniques are applied to the new discipline to define and expand the discipline.  In stage four the science is institutionalized as the knowledge generated in the first three stages is applied and in many cases makes the science "real world".

In dealing with the STEM pipeline and retaining students one might consider the stage our students reside in.  As Shneider suggests, if a student is attracted to science by stage one ideas and is funneled into a stage three or four science career they will tend to become unhappy.  Students might be better served by recognizing the stage of evolution they are attracted to and guiding them to a field at a similar stage.

The thought I had on reading this is that many of today's students in my classes are really stage four folks, looking for careers and institutionalized knowledge rather than the stage one-three thinking of their faculty mentors.  In trying to make them into stage three scientists we may be contributing to the pipeline problem, by chasing these students out of the profession.  In a related fashion, much of our NIH and NSF STEM resources are focused on encouraging creation of stage three people.  Again, by placing emphases on a single stage of evolution we may chase those in the other stages away from the professions.

We might be better served by recognizing the value of having professionals of all stage types and encouraging the development of professionals of all stages.  Of course this will require that we faculty are open enough to appreciate those stages other than our own.

T.S. Hall

Tomorrow's Steep Decline Part III

So, what do PUI and MCU folks do in the face of the decline in majors I have suggested will come?

In my opinion chemistry and biochemistry departments have historically been focused largely on two groups of people. They are would be professional chemists and biochemists and would be health professionals. Others are relegated to general education science courses that often don't really teach much chemistry or biochemistry, or science. As a consequence we make ourselves an elite and separate community who spends much time decrying the scientific illiteracy of the general population and trying to entice people into the STEM pipeline so they will become professional chemists and biochemists. There is not much middle ground in our programs.

There are many students who have a level of science interest and ability that is strong but not sufficient to make a career as a chemists, biochemist or health professional. Our departments lose these students to other majors every semester. But should we? There are many allied careers where a background in chemistry or biochemistry would be of value. In my opinion we should offer the degree options that would give the "lost" students the opportunity to channel their science interest into an allied science career. Doing so would retain students in our departments and would make for a more scientifically literate society. Greater science literacy could lead to greater interest in the "pure" STEM fields, solving our pipeline problem.

If I were in a leadership position in a department, we would institute BA degree options that provide a minor or double major in areas like business, regulatory affairs, pre-law, science communication, public policy, etc. Having a variety of options that serve the students and needs of employers would make us less subject to the vagaries of public interest (which TV shows are popular) and high school guidance counselors. There are already some models out there in schools with Chemistry Business and other allied options. Important in this effort will be ensuring that these degree options are treated as equal to the traditional options and receive the same level of recruitment activity.

The time to start such initiative is now, before the decline begins.

T.S. Hall

Impediments to Change - The Biggest

In the past I have written about some of those institutional factors that keep us from changing the chemistry curriculum to something that better reflects the state of the science and the needs of the community. I did so as a response to those that blame the faculty for the failure of the system that they themselves administer. The truth is that, as provocateurs tend to do, I overstated my case.

The biggest impediment to any change is the people who measure the field and find that change will be too hard, costs too much, or any number of other euphemisms that really mean that they are unwilling to try. Too often it is precisely the people who recognize the need for change who have found these scapegoats to blame for their own feet of clay. In honesty, I most certainly include myself in the above assessment.

Having the ability to see opportunity, what we can or should be able to do, can also give one the ability to see the rocky shoals and hidden reefs along the way to were we want to be. Too often, instead of using our knowledge to chart a course we sit at anchor and curse the difficulty of the course an all those impediments on it.

I have been thinking a lot about grant writing lately. One of the things granting teaches us is to make your case for exploring or making the change envisioned by our hypothesis. If we fail to get funding it has much less to do with the malice of the review panel than our ability to make a case for the work. Similarly, if the administration or the faculty see problems in the academy we need to make our case to each other in a way that invites shared participation.

I believe we must change higher education not just to save the industry, but to provide the service that higher education can provide the community. I believe that there are many honest brokers who care deeply about the mission of higher education. The challenges are many, but if we join together and create a viable business plan I believe we can sell the idea to those capable of funding the plan and willing to make the long term investment to see a program through to becoming self sustaining.

Since I believe that all endeavors must begin with a mission that is served by all the activities of the enterprise, I ask for input on the mission for our new STEM focused university. My initial thoughts run to:

Teaching the scientific way of thinking

Teaching both basic and applied science

Teaching allied skills necessary for careers with a science base

Contributing through scholarly activity to the field of study by both basic and applied means

OK, that's the general start. Readers are welcome to weigh in on the general mission and perhaps if there are enough followers we can get to specifics in the future.

T.S. Hall