Sequencing of the human genome has ushered in a new era of biology. The technologies developed to facilitate the sequencing of the human genome are now being applied to the sequencing of other genomes. In 2004, a partnership was formed between Washington University School of Medicine Genome Sequencing Center's Outreach Program and Washington University Department of Biology Science Outreach to create a video tour depicting the processes involved in large-scale sequencing. "Sequencing a Genome: Inside the Washington University Genome Sequencing Center" is a tour of the laboratory that follows the steps in the sequencing pipeline, interspersed with animated explanations of the scientific procedures used at the facility. Accompanying interviews with the staff illustrate different entry levels for a career in genome science. This video project serves as an example of how research and academic institutions can provide teachers and students with access and exposure to innovative technologies at the forefront of biomedical research. Initial feedback on the video from undergraduate students, high school teachers, and high school students provides suggestions for use of this video in a classroom setting to supplement present curricula.

As I sat down to write this column, I noticed in my e-mail inbox today's daily Lexis/Nexis search that I have requested for articles on challenges to the teaching of evolution or attempts to introduce “alternative views” such as intelligent design into science courses. Today's entry included 25 articles, op-eds, letters to editors, transcripts of network and cable news shows, and a note that an additional 24 articles were not displayed. All in all, a slow news day on this topic compared with searches that have yielded at least twice that number of hits per day in the past week or two. One piece of good news that these issues are finally receiving much needed, serious, and long overdue attention from a much broader spectrum of the scientific community. Scientists, both individually and collectively, and professional organizations from across the scientific disciplines are also recognizing these challenges to evolution as symptomatic of assaults on science and science education writ large. After all, Gallup and other polls have shown repeatedly that, for at least the past four decades during which this information has been collected, the percentage of people in the United States who indicate that creationism (now subsumed by the broader intelligent design movement) should be taught alongside with or instead of evolution in public school science classes has not changed (e.g., Newport, 2004 ; CBS News Polls, 2004 ; Pew Research Center, 2005 ). A growing body of education research also suggests that students at all grade levels (K–12 and postsecondary) come to science courses with misconceptions about evolution that are very difficult to correct or dislodge (e.g., Bishop and Anderson, 1990 ; Greene, 1990 ; Settlage, 1994 ; Anderson et al., 2002 ; Tanner and Allen, 2005 ). The problem of misconceptions about science is not unique to evolution, of course, but in the case of evolution, the problem is compounded because many students have been told that their personal belief systems will be challenged or undermined by engaging in learning about this subject. This concern underlies the angst and anger that some parents, members of school boards, and state legislators express when students are not exposed to purported “controversies” or “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution that are being touted by the Discovery Institute (the leading organization promoting intelligent design). In response to this worry, they are taking a variety of actions in increasing numbers of school districts and states to change the ways that evolution is taught (see Coyne, 2005 ; Orr, 2005 ; and the Web site of the National Center for Science Education — http://ncseweb.org1 — for overviews and resources). Currently there is little consensus within the scientific community about how to confront these challenges effectively. Responses by scientific societies and others are typically reactive to the latest provocation rather than proactive. Individual scientists and professional societies publish a litany of position papers decrying every new challenge,2 but rarely are there collective, coordinated statements from scientific organizations.3 In contrast, messages from proponents of intelligent design present a unified front, are clear and simple to remember (for example, “Teach the Controversy”), and resonate with a large number of people (e.g., Wilgoren, 2005 ). However, the situation is beginning to change as scientific organizations realize that providing the public with easy-to-understand information and direct messages is critically important. The remainder of this column describes the steps we at the National Academies have taken since our last article to address this issue (Alberts and Labov, 2004 ) and what we are planning for the future, both as an organization and in collaboration with other scientific organizations.

Science educators are urged (National Research Council [NRC], 1997, 2003; National Science Foundation, 1996) to adopt active-learning strategies and other alternatives to uninterrupted lecture to model the methods and mindsets at the heart of scientific inquiry, and to provide opportunities for students to connect abstract ideas to their real-world applications and acquire useful skills, and in doing so gain knowledge that persists beyond the course experience in which it was acquired. While these and other calls for reform dangle the carrot of promised cognitive gains before us (Bransford et al., 1999), the process of translating their message into the realities of practice in given classroom contexts remains a challenge of considerable magnitude. Perhaps because the inquiry-oriented methods that offer the most promise (Edgerton, 2001; Smith, K.A., et al., 2005) were often developed in small-class settings, the gap between promise and practice can seem almost impossible to close in the large-enrollment class environment that still predominates in the introductory course offerings of many colleges and universities. The conditions that led to creation of the large-enrollment class, particularly in research universities, are still with us (Edgerton, 2001) and are not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Thus, although the environment of a large class is not an easy one in which to thrive—either for the instructors who teach them (Carbone and Greenberg, 1998) or for the students who take them (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Tobias, 1990)—it is most probably here to stay. Unfortunately, traditional lecture-dominant methods often fail to motivate the meaningful intellectual engagement that is the central mission and hallmark of the college experience (Smith, K.A., et al., 2005) and that is a crucial factor in students’ personal and academic development (Light, 2001). In fact, when large class instructors rely solely on traditional forms of instruction, ‘‘. . . the individuals learning the most in this classroom are the professors. They have reserved for themselves the very conditions that promote learning: actively seeking new information, organizing it in a meaningful way, and having the chance to explain it to others’’ (Huba and Freed, 2000). But moving out from behind the relative safety of the lecture podium to adopt the types of active strategies that shift classroom emphasis away from teachers’ teaching toward students’ participation and learning is often an unsettling prospect, even in the small-class setting. Everyone has heard those real or apocryphal tales of hapless professors who responded to ‘‘the call,’’ then were laid low by the ironic onslaught of student anxiety, resistance, or downright anger when the students were presented with classroom activities that aimed to shift emphasis from memorization and recall to the building of critical thinking skills, and the skill and ability to conduct self-directed learning (Felder and Brent, 1996). Added to the difficulties inherent with instructor and student adjustment to new teaching and learning paradigms are the cogent and interrelated issues of resources and rewards (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1998). The faculty member using inquiry-oriented instruction is often facedwith the need to develop new curricula to supplement or replace a reliance on textbooks, a task for which she or he may have received little prior training. The organizational tasks and grading responsibilities inherent in large-class instruction may seem multiplied by an unmanageable order of magnitude when implementation of even the most basic of active-learning strategies is contemplated. It is no wonder that many college and university professors, often faced with the struggle to achieve effective practice in both the teaching and research arenas and thus considerable time constraints, choose the default position of the lecture, with its predictability and efficiency at imparting information. In effect, they may feel caught between a rock and a hard place when confronted with the increasingly more frequent and cogent calls for change in the way science is taught (NRC, 1997, 2003; National Science Foundation, 1996). Fortunately, the strategies for breaking down the roadblocks and realizing the promise of active learning and inquiry instruction in the large class are being tested and publicized (Handelsman et al., 2004). Educators who have addressed the multitude of issues that underlie implementation of active-learning strategies in large-enrollment settings are conscientiously spreading the word to the science education community by presenting at conferences or publishing in science education journals (Allen and Tanner, 2005). In previous columns we have discussed a few of the multitude of strategies encompassed by the term ‘‘active DOI: 10.1187 / cbe.05-08-0113 Address correspondence to: Deborah Allen (deallen@udel.edu). Cell Biology Education Vol. 4, 262–268, Winter 2005

We carried out an experiment to determine whether student learning gains in a large, traditionally taught, upper-division lecture course in developmental biology could be increased by partially changing to a more interactive classroom format. In two successive semesters, we presented the same course syllabus using different teaching styles: in fall 2003, the traditional lecture format; and in spring 2004, decreased lecturing and addition of student participation and cooperative problem solving during class time, including frequent in-class assessment of understanding. We used performance on pretests and posttests, and on homework problems to estimate and compare student learning gains between the two semesters. Our results indicated significantly higher learning gains and better conceptual understanding in the more interactive course. To assess reproducibility of these effects, we repeated the interactive course in spring 2005 with similar results. Our findings parallel results of similar teaching-style comparisons made in other disciplines. On the basis of this evidence, we propose a general model for teaching large biology courses that incorporates interactive engagement and cooperative work in place of some lecturing, while retaining course content by demanding greater student responsibility for learning outside of class.

A knowledge survey (KS) is a series of content-based questions sequenced in order of presentation during a course. Students do not answer the questions; rather, they rank their confidence in their ability to answer each question. A 304-question KS was designed and implemented for a multisection, multi-instructor introductory biology course to determine whether this tool could be used to assess student learning. The KS was administered during the first 2 wk and the last 2 wk of the semester online via WebCT. Results were scored using one point for each "not confident" response (level 1), two points for each "possibly confident" response (level 2), and three points for each "confident" response (level 3). We found that scores increased significantly between the pre- and post-KS, indicating that student confidence in their knowledge of the course material increased over the semester. However, the correlation between student confidence and final grades was negligible or low, and chi-square tests show that KS scores and matched exam questions were not significantly related. We conclude that under the conditions implemented in our study, the KS does not reliably measure student learning as measured by final grades or exam questions.

With genomics well established in modern molecular biology, recent studies have sought to further the discipline by integrating complementary methodologies into a holistic depiction of the molecular mechanisms underpinning cell function. This genomic subdiscipline, loosely termed "systems biology," presents the biology educator with both opportunities and obstacles: The benefit of exposing students to this cutting-edge scientific methodology is manifest, yet how does one convey the breadth and advantage of systems biology while still engaging the student? Here, I describe an active-learning approach to the presentation of systems biology. In graduate classes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, I divided students into small groups and asked each group to interpret a sample data set (e.g., microarray data, two-hybrid data, homology-search results) describing a hypothetical signaling pathway. Mimicking realistic experimental results, each data set revealed a portion of this pathway; however, students were only able to reconstruct the full pathway by integrating all data sets, thereby exemplifying the utility in a systems biology approach. Student response to this cooperative exercise was extremely positive. In total, this approach provides an effective introduction to systems biology appropriate for students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Undergraduate students in the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of South Alabama, Mobile, are required to take a course entitled "Issues in Biomedical Sciences," designed to increase students' awareness about bioethical questions and issues concerning research integrity. This paper describes the main features of this course and summarizes the results of a survey designed to evaluate the students' perceptions about the course. A summary of this study was presented at the 2002 Conference on Research Integrity in Potomac, MD, sponsored by the Office of Research Integrity of the National Institutes of Health.

On August 1, I had the honor of becoming Editor-in-Chief of Cell Biology Education, replacing co-editors Sarah (Sally) Elgin and Malcolm Campbell. Sally and Malcolm have done a tremendous job. Over the past three years, they have built what was a wonderful idea but a struggling operation into a respected educational journal that ASCB can take great pride in. CBE now has over 5,000 registered subscribers and a broad base of contributors, including ASCB members as well as other scientists, teachers, and educators from several disciplines. I thank and salute Sally and Malcolm for their highly effective stewardship, and I will do my best to maintain their high standards and continue the pursuit of their vision for the journal. Cell Biology Education is a unique publication. It is written by and for biologists about educational issues, but with a mission: helping its contributors and readers to think more deeply about the way they teach and to improve their teaching skills. Several other journals publish new lab descriptions, teaching tips, and so on, but Cell Biology Education goes further, asking contributors to approach their teaching as they do their research. This means not just experimenting with new approaches but collecting evidence to evaluate their effectiveness (Handelsman, et al., 2004). Articles on development of new courses or labs are not accepted without some assessment data to demonstrate how well the course worked in terms of student learning gains (not simply student approval and instructor satisfaction). To help educate potential contributors about how to do assessment, which is a new endeavor for many of us, the journal has published several helpful and informative articles on how to do it effectively (e.g., Sundberg, 2002; Dancy and Beichner, 2002). Cell Biology Education now has opportunities to grow in circulation, scope, and influence, and the journal will make a few changes to help this happen. Its goal from the start has been to serve all biologists, but some potential contributors outside the field of cell biology have found the current name too restrictive. Beginning with the Spring 2006 issue, the journal’s name will become CBE–Life Sciences Education, signaling our intention to publish work from other areas but retaining the familiar ‘‘CBE’’ and clear identification with ASCB. For the same purposes, we have recently added several respected biologist-educators from other areas to the editorial board. We expect that they will help to increase the number and scope of submissions, which in turn should increase and broaden our readership. Finally, exploratory talks are under way with a few other biological societies that may be interested in allying their efforts in education with ours in some way, making CBE an umbrella gateway to the biology education literature. Two things will not change! One is the free availability of the journal online to all readers. The other is the admirable balance that the journal has achieved, on its diverse and discriminating editorial board and in its diversity of features and articles. CBE-LSE will continue to be written by and to serve professionals engaged in biology teaching in all environments, including faculty at large research universities who teach but do not view teaching as their primary mission, as well as those whose teaching is the major focus of their careers, in primarily undergraduate institutions, museums and outreach programs, junior and community colleges, and K–12 schools. All of us have successes to report and problems to solve that can benefit from the broad forum that the journal provides, and one of our goals will be to continue bringing these diverse educators together in a concerted effort to improve education in biology. I urge you to use the journal and to help spread awareness of the unique resources it provides. Consider reporting your own educational innovations in these pages. CBE-LSE will continue to be your journal, and with your help and support it will be an increasingly important force in life sciences education.