The molecular revolution in biology has had a profound effect on biology education, shifting the focus away from what was oft-caricatured as 'dissecting toads' to a thoroughly modernised scheme. Taking pride of place is the study of DNA and modern genetics, as well as cell biology and biochemistry, with much emphasis upon medical and life-science applications.
This is clearly evident in the new A level subject syllabus for Biology. The subject synopsis offered by the Ministry of Education lists the 'included topics' (and hence those considered to be of prime importance) as 'Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, DNA Science and Genomics, Genetics (including the Genetics of Viruses and Bacteria), Diversity and Evolution, and the Applications of Molecular and Cell Biology' for the H2 level, which roughly corresponds to the depth of study at the present A level. Conspicuously missing are: the physiology of whole plants and animals (as opposed to individual cells), ecology, growth and development, and reproduction. These are topics found in almost any biology textbook and considered to be part of a holistic picture of the field. Even more conspicuous is the offering at the H3 level, corresponding to the present S paper, namely its exclusive coverage of proteomics. Biology students who show promise in the subject will be, from 2006, thoroughly familiar with the minutiae of protein structure and function.
Economics and Education
That educational policy in Singapore is shaped, in part, by economic needs is a clear and undenied fact. Indeed, part of the economic boom of post-independence Singapore is unabashedly ascribed to the implementation of technical education in secondary schools for both boys and girls, as well as the establishment of technical institutes and polytechnics, to accomodate the need for skilled workers in manufacturing and industry. The present biotechnology boom has seen Singapore jump on the bandwagon with great eagerness. The benefits are undeniable: well-paying jobs, a high profile for the nation in the international scene, and smoothly humming growth in the life-sciences and pharmaceutical sectors. Major players in the industry are drawn to the pre-fab infrastructure (e.g. Biopolis), and the stream of life-science majors who have just begun to graduate from our universities. Aside from simply inviting foreign investment (a well-worn and trusty technique for laying industrial foundations and developing local expertise that dates from the nation's pioneer industrial days), local innovation is encouraged in the universities and several research institutes.
The economic demands vs. educational idealism debate is an old one. Briefly stated, the central problem is this: how does one balance the need for students (being the workers of the future) to have a grounding in what is deemed to be economically important, with the need for students to be given a broad education that adequately exposes them to the diversity of knowledge and inspires them to learning? The pragmatic answer is usually more heavily weighted towards economic than pedagogical ideals, arguing that most students would not have a use for their ivory tower knowledge, and for them to survive in the world it is best to equip them with practical skills. A broad, humanistic education is seen as a preserve of the elite, who have ample time and opportunity to explore their intellectual curiosity. I am not attempting to replay the entire debate here, but merely to highlight the fact that this present situation can be viewed as a case in a general category.
The Benefits of Integrative Biology
Pragmatic educationists, hence, would want to know exactly why and how a broad background in biology, with precious time spent on such unprofitable fields as the anatomy of plants and the diversity of excretion systems for nitrogenous waste, would be beneficial to students in terms of their role as future workers in the life-science industries. This is the most cogent way to argue our case for restoring balance to biological education, because pleading to the integrative beauty of a holistic biology, while true in principle, does not highlight any immediate benefits. Educational policy in Singapore must be seen as a product of several influences, chief among them economic and social (aside from the pedagogical component). To convince the policymakers, we must speak with their terms, with their point of view in mind.
So how exactly is integrative biology a better approach compared to detailed study of proteins and genomes? Why should our students learn about the different kinds of fruits and the ecology of forest trees? How would that benefit them?
- Broad biological knowledge helps in understanding specific biological problems
Biology is a close-knit subject. A broad-based background will help students understand their chosen specialist field and lend insight to facts which would otherwise be accepted unblinkingly. For instance, the existence of protein 'families' with similar structures and sequences, such as the globin family, can be related to the principle of common descent in evolution. The reason why these families of related molecules exist can only be understood in the context of evolution, and naturally would lead to the appreciation that not only do related organisms share similar proteins, they also share similar traits, and morphological traits are partly a result of the proteins expressed by the genome of an organism, a consequence of the central dogma of molecular biology. Another example: the proteins actin and myosin are found in muscle. The different kinds of muscle: striated, smooth, and cardiac, have different fine structures and serve different functions in the body. Additionally, the forms of actin and myosin found in smooth muscle are different from that found in striated. The means by which muscle contraction is activated also differ. Knowledge of how proteins work in muscle is good knowledge to have, but somewhat sterile if one is ignorant of the different roles that different muscle types play in the body (voluntary vs involuntary contractions, their reasons and requirements, etc.). - A broad background helps us formulate interesting research questions
Too narrow a focus on proteins and molecules alone would put blinders on a student's outlook. Biology is interesting because the problems of biology have multiple modes of solution (in addition to the proximate/ultimate dichotomy, one can also answer questions at multiple levels of organisation, or with consideration to physico-chemical factors, or in relation to the environment, etc.). For instance, plants often use chemical substances to deter the attacks of browsers and pests. If one could isolate the active principle then one could have a substance useful in pest control. But to discover that fact in the first place requires ecological research. Systematics and biodiversity then becomes important, because one needs to identify the plants and pests in order to breed and harvest the correct compounds. Identification, in turn, requires knowledge of basic anatomy and morphology. The isolation and origin of the compound, on the other hand, needs the expertise of a biochemist. A biological generalist would be at an advantage over a strict specialist because he or she would have had some exposure to these concepts before.
The triumphs of developmental biology also rest on sound facts discovered by patient observation long before the present molecular revolution. Good fortune favoured the identification of Caenorhabditis elegans as a model organism to study developmental processes, while convenient traits cemented that choice. Among those traits is the determinate development of the nematode worms, a fact established by the anatomists of the 19th century, working with little other than their dissecting tools and microscopes, along with detailed and meticulous observation. Much important empirical work (i.e. observing and recording facts) had been done by the embryologists of the classical era, in their descriptions of the modes and patterns of cell division in the embryo. These provided the factual foundation upon which present theoretical work lies. The point here is: choosing the right model organism required biological insight and appreciation of its general biology. To make other similarly fruitful propositions and come up with other innovative ideas likewise requires a broad mind with a broad base of facts to draw upon.
The context of the molecule is the organism
Among the topics that students will learn in the new syllabus are the proteins involved in the various kinds of cell junctions. An astute student might question why are there different kinds of cell junction in the first place. The answer lies in the different functions they play in the cell and in turn the different roles these various cells play in the organism. For instance, tight junctions are found where close adhesion of cells is required to prevent substances from crossing a sheet of tissue, such as in the gut. Plasmodesmata are found in plant cells, effectively making the cytoplasmic contents of all the cells continuous with each other. This has implications for cell-cell communication, water relations, transport of substances, and so on. Likewise, it would be pointless (or distinctly cruel) to teach the structure of immunoglobulins and their use in biotechnology without some discussion of the nature of the immune response, the carriage of immune system elements in the blood, and the unusual genetics of the immunoglobulin genes. Similarly, it is odd to teach in detail the means by which cells regulate their internal environment (cellular homeostasis) without reference to the homeostasis of organisms, from which the idea of homeostasis arose. Without the prior paradigm of 'a constant internal milieu' within an organism, science would have had difficulty formulating the analogous concept for cells.
Conclusion
Aside from the main arguments raised above, there are a few auxiliary points: our performance in international competitions will suffer if the syllabus changes much more in this direction, the strong focus on biotechnological and life-science aspects of biology does little to distinguish the A-level course from polytechnic courses in life science (one might argue that the polytechnics would do a better job, with more hands-on experiences and better qualified specialist lecturers), and that the syllabus also prepares students poorly for medical school (a popular choice among biology students) and hence places undue demands on medical school lecturers to teach basic concepts in an already packed schedule.
As biologists, we cannot patiently observe the erosion of our discipline like we observe the erosion of biodiversity -- that is a job for anthropologists. Instead, a concerted effort must be made to turn around the present state of affairs, to achieve a more balanced spread for future students of biology. Students with talent, aptitude, and an interest in biology sensu lato might be turned off by the 'new biology' on offer, hence wasting their potential. Furthermore, molecular biology is not the only field of biology that still has active research. Other fields are still lucrative, in particular forestry and agricultural sciences (which draw heavily on plant sciences), given our convenient position in the region. It is not prudent to put all our resources into a single endeavour. Molecular biologists who might greet the present situation with glee should be reminded of the arguments above, that a broad biological vision is necessary for developing new research programmes and innovations in their field. If new recruits consistently lack vision then they would be nothing more than an army of drudge workers with little originality. The breakthroughs that do count are usually those which span several specialist fields. Overspecialisation might end up working against the interests of molecular biology.
What can be done?
Policy changes take time to be fully implemented. In this nascent time, the policymakers would be in the process of cementing the details of the new curriculum, hence feedback from people that matter: students, teachers, and practising biologists, will matter and should be fed. In addition, efforts should be made to keep interest in biology, that is, real living biology, alive through grassroots efforts such as the young scientist schemes still offered for primary school children, field trips and volunteer opportunities in our nature areas, and biology societies in schools. At a higher level, competitions such as the Biology Olympiad will ensure that at the very least there will be a core (a hard-core) of biology students with a wide outlook on the field. Given our country's competitive nature it would be against its interests to let our performance in this area slip. Hopefully the balance will return to a more harmonious position and settle biology into place as an exciting and diverse field of study for our young scientists.
No comments:
Post a Comment