A Curricular "Straw Man" for Biologists

Abstract

FOR SEVERAL decades biology has been sick man of science. Despite constant flow of important new information from research laboratories, biology has steadily lost prestige among public the, apparently, more dynamic and romantic fields of chemistry and physics. Consequently, biology has often failed attract best undergraduate talent. Lack of positive achievement can hardly be blamed for this situation. The significant advances that have recently been made in our understanding of organization and function of every biological unit from molecules populations emphasize this point. As Glass (1957) has pointed out, we need not make apologies for being biologists. He writes that to be a biologist is seek for uttermost of nature's secrets, nature of life itself. We live, and in that kinship of life with plants and animals and microbes strive comprehend what it is that sets us apart from infinite uncomprehending universe. Taylor (1958) in a very penetrating article tells us that the objectives of biologist's inquiry is (sic) hottest thing in universe. If our achievements and our aims have been worthy, in what essential way has biology failed maintain its proper status among sciences? Many biologists feel that major failure has been in communication. Glass (1957) says: There are few biologists who endeavor make their biology count for anything outside laboratory and classroom. If this statement is true, is it because we have not made our biology in classroom count for enough? It is reasonably certain that we have not. As Behnke (1957) indicates, our curricula in biology have remained static despite accretion of new fringe courses and occasional fragmentation of older, traditional courses. The lag period between classroom biology and research frontiers has been appalling.