Keys to Success

This article deals with identification of methods to help "nonmainstream" pupils make academic gains in all subject areas. The author has worked with students ranging from Native Hawaiians to Zuni and Navajo Indians to Latinos. Researchers from the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence at the University of California-Santa Cruz have identified five standards as critical to improving learning for students from diverse ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or economic backgrounds:

• Teachers and students "producing" together, whether they are producing knowledge or some tangible product
• Developing students' language and literacy competence in all subjects
• Connecting school and learning to students' lives, or "contextualizing" knowledge
• Teaching complex thinking
• Teaching through conversation rather than relying on lectures

I was pleasantly surprised at how well these standards coincided with or incorporated the prinicples of the Learning Cycle, reinforcing the idea that teaching science this way is and can be of great benefit to Native American students.

Bibliographic Note:

Debra Viadero, "Keys to Success", Education Week, 02774232, 4/21/04, Vol. 23, Issue 32

Education and the Law (Final Weekend)

I have prepared two legal briefs on cases involving student searches, and completed a Resolution, Equity, and Advocacy Project. I have a comprehensive final exam this weekend, as well as a Legal Improvement and Social Justice Project to finish. I simply didn't realize just how little I, and most of my co-workers, know about legal issues that impact us and our profession on an everyday basis. This course has proven to be very enlightening and rewarding.

Education and the Law

I spent most of this past weekend in class with Dr. Rossow and a cohort of teachers and coaches, most of them seeking administrative degrees. I am writing briefs and other projects, and learned quite a bit of educational law. For instance, there are approximately twelve Constitutional "tests" with which a teacher or administrator can plug in the facts of a given situation at school, and with a great deal of confidence predict the legal outcome, if any. I feel all educators, regardless of experience, need to be more informed about legal issues in their profession. As a science teacher I am particularly interested in liability issues concerning hand-on experiments and other activities which are the foundation of the Learning Cycle. Dr. Rossow is a wonderful teacher, and very knowledgeable, with years of practical experience as a teacher and administrator in grade schools.

Carolina Biological STC and STC/MS Programs

We are at approximately the midterm point in school, and I feel I have used the STC (Science and Technology for Children) system enough now I can make some informed and relevant comments about it. Some of our students have more experience with it than others, due to class time being used for completion of science fair projects, and the science fair itself. My first point would be that as with any new curriculum or system there is a period of adjustment, both on the part of the teachers as well as the students. I could sense right away it will be so much more effective in subsequent years of use, for two main reasons; familiarity on the part of the teachers, and also because students have used different STC units in previous years. There is an emphasis on evaluation in smaller, but more frequent, increments. It will be interesting to see the overall standardized test scores over a period of five to ten years if the school continues to utilize it. There has been some of the (unfortunately) expected negativity from teachers who are "too busy teaching the three R's", especially in the lower grades. In my opinion it is a lack of motivation, and even a certain degree of squeamishness about working with live specimens, for instance, that this springs from. I am trying to help them get past that. This system is supposed to be based on the Learning Cycle, and in some units this is obvious, and in other units not so much. Overall I feel our students are embracing this method of learning science, and I even have reports of third graders clamoring for more science, and verbalizing how much they look forward to science time now.

Bibliographic Note:

http://www.carolina.com/carolina_curriculum/stc/index.asp

KIPP Schools

A parent mentioned the KIPP Schools yesterday in the context of a conversation about emphasizing hands-on learning and the Learning Cycle. I was not familiar with them, but I intend to use my blog as a pretext for discovering what they are all about and how it may apply to my research and studies at OU.

Bibliographic Note:

http://www.kipp.org/

Chess and the Learning Cycle

In continuing my line of thought from the previous post, I would like to explore how or if chess can be used to promote academic performance in general, and in science in particular. I never played until a few times as an undergrad at NSU. When I went to El Paso to teach at the high school level in 1988 I inherited the sponsorship of my new school's chess club by default. I quickly grew to see what appeared to be a strong connection between academic success and playing chess. I have since researched this idea and found a strong body of work suggesting a link between chess and grades, cognition, problem solving ability, self-esteem, and even long-term economic benefits! I will post some of these articles as I progress through my blog. At Maryetta, a K-8 school in rural NE Oklahoma, I approached my administration armed with such studies, and they have supported the introduction of a chess elective, club, and team. A Maryetta K-6 team even finished third in the state the first year they competed at that level. I also intend to try to tie chess tactics, strategy, and problems into the mode of the Learning Cycle, if possible.

Bibliographic Note:

http://www.okschess.org/

http://www.uschess.org/scholastic/

How can we generate enthusiasm and interest in academics, and in particular science?

Following up on previous posts, I hope to explore ways to create, transfer, and maintain the excitement and interest we have in scholastic sports and parlay that into the same for academics, and in particular science and math. The first step, in my opinion, is to remove competitive athletics from the school day entirely. They should be in the after-school and weekend club format, like they use in Europe, for instance. This allows more actual class time for core subjects and electives. I remember in fifth grade at Cherokee Elementary in Tahlequah, Mr. Gary Kimball heightened our enthusiasm for arithmetic by having competitive "races" involving problem solving on the chalkboard, with prizes going to winners. Of course more emphasis on science fairs and symposia, quiz bowls, academic teams, writing contests, speech and debate and so on could incorporate our competitive nature into learning science and math as well. Another possibility would be what I call "science expositions" wherein students individually or in small groups demonstrate a concept from life or physical science in a booth. Parents, other students, and community members are invited to see and hear the students explain and demonstrate a relevant and interesting scientific topic. This could evolve from Learning Cycle based lessons in that the students would have developed their understanding of said topic through experience. Prizes could be awarded, and other schools could be invited to participate and compete as well. This idea also falls from the old axiom that I found to be true from personal experience, and that is you don't really understand something yourself until you teach it to someone else. I will research and post some related references on these ideas as well.

Why do we emphasize and value athletics over academics?

This post is in response to Ike's comments concerning the "Fewer Teachers, More Coaches?" post earlier in the blog. I recalled some earlier readings I had done, and I wanted to take the opportunity to look up, cite, and discuss some more recent and hopefully more scholarly articles, essays, and books on the idea that we place so much emphasis on sports as "ritualized warfare" because it is ingrained in us culturally, psychologically, and even genetically.

Bibliographic Note:

Carl Sagan, Billions & Billions, Thoughts on Life and Death and the Brink of the Millennium, (New York, Random House, 1997). The late astronomer Carl Sagan provided readers with insights into the connection between hunting, athletic games and a sensibility of the spiritual world. Others have noted this nexus as well, including psychologist William James. Quoted by Sagan, James noted: “The hunting and the fighting instinct combine in many manifestations... It is just because human bloodthirstiness is such a primitive part of us that is so hard to eradicate, especially where a fight or a hunt is promised as part of the fun.” 1 Sagan presents us with the thesis that modern day competitive sports “are symbolic conflicts, thinly disguised” and may be the contemporary successors to earlier hunting rituals. By ancient standards, even the antics of the WWF (if you believe them to be real, and not scripted) or the most valiantly contested Super Bowl pale when compared to the brutality of ancient games. In Meso America, for instance, the Mayans and the Aztecs often used a “ball game” to resolve political differences with other tribal groups. The stakes were high; the loosing team was often killed or enslaved. Today’s $5 million signing bonuses, while extravagant, represent a degree of human progress. Indeed, a loss on the game field was sometimes considered as significant as a military defeat. Gods were worshipped and appeased so that the hunt, the game, the outcome of battle would all be successful. Our modern teams are not that different in other ways, either, from their earlier counterparts. We have the Chicago Bears and the Detroit Tigers; the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana had jackals, wildcats and scorpions as their “totems.” They also had “owners,” which today is reserved only for management, not players, and other names which cities or schools may have trouble rooting for. Sagan lists totems like Lice, Bitter Melons, Penises, Short Feet, Big Talkers (perhaps apropos for a Washington, D.C. franchise?) and Diarrheas. From a historical standpoint, though, the evidence is compelling; our modern day athletic contests are rooted, in part, in ancient rituals and symbols having to do with hunting, the natural world, and the propitiation of supernatural forces. http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar9-8-99.html

Don't Think of an Elephant!

I ordered this book per Dr. Pedersen's recommendation and have already almost finished reading it. Let me begin by saying that the first presidential election I was able to vote in, I was suckered in by Ronald Reagan. I subsequently realized the error of my ways and registered Libertarian, and wasted votes through the 90s on their candidates. In the new century I have vacillated between Democratic and Independent candidates in most elections. The concept of framing can be very useful as put forth by Lakoff, and the cognitive aspects are illuminating and applicable in education and many other fields. I began to realize as I read through the book that something similar was happening to what happened to me many times this summer while blogging my history of science course. That is, concepts and ideas that I was intuitively aware of, or at least in agreement with, were being given names, placed in context, and "framed" if you will. I realize I have a lot to learn about my profession and life in general (as we all do!) but I am beginning to wonder if this is common among graduate students, and in particular those in a PhD program. Is the emphasis less on learning "new" things, and more on organizing, focusing, and again "framing" a lot of what we already know, and consequently then being able to use and aplly it/them more effectively? I think much of these thoughts are coming about for me because I do have almost twenty years of classroom experience.

Bibliographic Note:

George Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives, (Vermont, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate.
In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate.
Lakoff's years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests.
Don't Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing's stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States.
Read it, take action-and help take America back.

NSTA Reports

In the interest of reading and discussing a wide variety of sources relating to my areas of interest, I intend to include some interesting and relevant articles from this newspaper. I have been a member of NSTA since 1995. This month there are articles about alternative certification, NCLB, a review of a book called Science for English Language Learners by the NSTA Press, picturing to learn, and a discussion concerning Pluto in the classroom.

Bibliographic Note:

NSTA Reports: Monthly Newsletter of the National Science Teachers Association, October 2006, Volume 18 Number 2

Science For All...

This article from Educational Researcher focuses on equitable science education for students from non-English-language backgrounds (NELB) but the approaches outlined here can probably be applied to other diverse groups and subject areas. The authors propose the notion of "instructional congruence" as a way of making academic content accessible, meaningful, and relevant for diverse learners.

Bibliographic Note:

Okhee Lee and Sandra Fradd, "Science for All, Including Students From Non-English-Language Backgrounds", Educational Researcher, Vol. 27, No.4, pp12-21.

Fewer Teachers; More Coaches?

This is an interesting essay I first read in a newspaper op-ed page, and later tracked down online. The author makes some insightful points about the emphasis of athletics in our schools (particularly in rural eastern Oklahoma), sometimes to the detriment of academics. He then discusses the feasibility of incorporating some of the techniques and attitudes of coaches into classroom teaching, including an emphasis on "drilling" and repetition. This of course brings up an interesting potential conflict, in my opinion, with the philosophy of the Learning Cycle.

Bibliographic Note:

Jason R. Edwards, The Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College, "Fewer Teachers; More Coaches", http://gcc.savvior.com/Edwards_Coach.php?view_all=1 , 9/22/05.

Education and the Law

In November I have a three hour course at OU-Tulsa over two weekends called Education and the Law (EACS 6243) . I have obtained the required text and would like to comment on it periodically as I read ahead in anticipation of the class. I will also look up some more articles and web sites, with an emphasis on Johnson-O'Malley and other aspects of education pertaining to Native Americans. I also feel strongly that all educators should have a stronger grasp of education law, and particularly those in the Instuctional Leadership and Academic Curriculum program.

Bibliographic Note:

Lawrence F. Rossow and Jacqueline Stefkovich, Education Law: Cases and Materials, (Durham, North Carolina, Carolina Academic Press, 2005).

Learning Cycle Web Pages

In order to further understand the Learning Cycle and take in various perspectives on it I have researched, compiled, and viewed a variety of web sites relating to this topic, some of which I have cited here. The web sites fluctuate greatly in reliability, in my opinion, and many credit no one directly for their content, but I felt as I begin to formulate a plan of attack for my own research I need to be aware of what diversity of viewpoints is available in this area.

Bibliographic Note:

Mark Waters, et al., Modular Trainers' Course, "The Experiential Learning Cycle", http://www.trainer.org.uk/members/theory/process/learning_cycle.htm, no date.

The Maryland Virtual High School of Science and Mathematics, "Learning Cycle Instructional Model", http://mvhs1.mbhs.edu/mvhsproj/learningcycle/lc.html, no date.

No author, "The Kolb Learning Cycle", http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/PAGEMILL/Kolb.htm, no date.

Anthony W. Lorsbach, "The Learning Cycle as a Tool for Planning Science Instruction", http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/scienceed/lorsbach/257lrcy.htm , Illinois State University. I came across this succinct and informative web site while searching for articles, it encapsulates the Learning Cycle quite well, in my opinion.

History, Technology, and Native Populations

These readings are intended to broaden and deepen my perspective and understanding of Native American cultures and their relationships with European settlers.

Bibliographic Note:

Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, (New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1999). Most of this work deals with non-Europeans, but Diamond's thesis sheds light on why Western civilization became hegemonic: "History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves." Those who domesticated plants and animals early got a head start on developing writing, government, technology, weapons of war, and immunity to deadly germs. (Library Journal 2/15/97)

Charles C. Mann, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, (New York, Random House, 2005). The book marshals evidence accumulated over the last several decades about pre-columbian human population and natural environments in the New World and concludes that human populations were much higher, more sophisticated, and more in control of the land than is commonly thought, in line with the earliest reports of Europeans such as Gaspar de Carvajal and Hernando de Soto.
Old World diseases spread through the Americas in great pandemics the century following 1492. Without these diseases, the conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires, as well as subsequent conquests, would have been impossible. Perhaps the most audacious observation in the book is that the Amazon Rainforest has been largely shaped by forgotten agricultural methods, including the creation of terra preta. (Wikipedia, 9/20/06)

Native American Science Education

In this section I hope to find, read, and discuss some references relating specifically to science education and Native American student populations, as well as closely related topics. I was able to obtain the book Igniting the Sparkle... through InterLibrary Loan and have begun to read it.

The Science & Education article deals with two more unusual and interesting curricula: the Imagining Nature Project at Deakin University in Geelong, Victoria, Australia and the Native Eyes Project at the Institute of American Indian Art in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Both projects incorporate innovative and unique strategies to teach science to non-science majors of diverse cultural origin.

Bibliographic Note:

Gregory A. Cajete, Igniting the Sparkle: An Indigenous Science Education Model, (North Carolina, Kivaki Press, 1999). This book describes a culturally responsive, wholistic, Native American science curriculum the author has been teaching for 25 years.

David Wade Chambers, "Seeing a World in a Grain of Sand: Science Teaching in a Multicultural Context", Science & Education 8:633-644, 1999.

Reports on Educational Opportunity

A few months ago I read a newspaper article about the death of Harvard statistician Charles Frederick Mosteller, and found out he had co-authored a book on educational opportunity with Patrick Moynihan in 1972. I have ordered the book and am awaiting its arrival. I felt this and related articles would be a good starting point leading into more specific articles on science instruction for Native Americans and in rural and poorer schools in general. It also gives me a historical perspective on education in the U.S. and some important societal and cultural milestones as well. I have also been reading my NSTA Reports (I am a member) for September 2006, and there some interesting articles on grant writing, No Child Left Behind, and science literacy.

So far I would say the overwhelming point I am taking from these readings is that a student's home, family, and socioeconomic situation may not be the only factors that determine their academic success, they are collectively by far the most important, far outweighing anything that has or can be done at school.

Bibliographic Note:

James S. Coleman et al. "Equality of Educational Opportunity Study (EEOS)" U.S. Office of Education (1966).

Charles Frederick Mosteller and Patrick Moynihan, On Equality of Educational Opportunity, (New York, Random House, 1972).

John F. Kain, "Equality of Educational Opportunity Revisited", New England Economic Review, 1996.

Initial Post of Individual Studies Course.

I am still reading through this text, and am even in the process of incorporating some of the labs into my 6-8th curriculum. I will report on the results as they become available. In response to Dr. Pedersen's comments, in my previous position at the high school level in Texas we had district curriculum guides that laid out very specifically what, how, and when we were to teach a given topic, within a course. At the small, rural PreK-8 school I am at currently there has never been a prescribed curriculum in any course, including science. We did adopt the Carolina Biological STC/MS program last year, and implemented it this year, and it is grounded in the Learning Cycle philosophy. Obviously we have had previously much latitude in how we taught our courses, as long as our students were well-versed in the essential PASS objectives.

Based on what I knew coming in, as well as the reading I have done so far this semester, I believe the learning cycle to be a model of teaching, but I would like to know Dr. Pedersen's definitions of teaching approaches, models, and methods before I go any further.

The idea of knowledge construction as opposed to just presenting information to students for them to memorize, makes sense to me, but it is also requiring a turnabout from the methods by which I was taught in school for the most part, and even some of the teaching methods I employ myself. My teaching philosophy, in general terms, has evolved over a nearly twenty year career-spanning third grade through AP/IB/Honors high school seniors-to include as many different ways of presenting material to the students as possible. By that I mean in order to accomodate the various learning styles represented by the students in my classes I might give notes, assign readings, perform demonstrations, have student-driven hands-on labs, student oral reports and discussions, and more, all on the same topic. I realize now that I had in fact used Learning cycle methods without having been formally trained or recognizing the techniques as such. Of course this is all relative to teaching at the high school level for the first fifteen years, and I am adjusting to teaching middle and elementary school students with differing levels of cognition and development.

Bibliographic Note:

John Renner and Edmund Marek, The Learning Cycle and Elementary School Science Teaching, (Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann Educational Books, 1988). I borrowed this book from a coworker to investigate the Learning Cycle on my own.

Final Post of History of Science Course

Although I have not quite finished the course work, and have to schedule one final visit to the Collections, I wanted to begin my final post partially so I could begin to document my general observations as they occur to me, but also because it is not clear when I will return to the Collections. I have visited three times already, and as I progress through my program at OU I hope to continue to make use of the Collections, as well as take at least one general survey course of the history of science during a regular semester. I also wanted to again thank Dr. Magruder and everyone at the Collections and OU libraries who have helped me. I wish to remind any readers of this blog that OU has a world-renowned History of Science Collections of which we should be proud, and to utilize it whenever possible. I cannot relate in words the impression and impact of holding and reading some of the original works at the Collections. I also wish to thank the readers of this blog, particularly those who provided feedback.

One of the main points I learned this summer is to be aware of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, Whiggism, hagiography, rational reconstruction, and "shoe-horning". I feel I am not only more aware of these potential pitfalls, but have learned ways to avoid and defeat them, with an emphasis on the use of original sources whenever possible. I have also been exposed to many new sources and methods of research, which I will continue to utilize. Some of the high points for me were obviously Darwin, Mendel, and Watson and Crick. The Double Helix in particular has immediately become one of my favorite books, in or out of science. The sequence of books and essays dealing with evolution, creationism, and how we as a society are dealing with it has importance then and now, and provided fascinating thought and reading. It was also stimulating and refreshing to learn more about some people and subjects that I knew much less of, such as Aristotle, Galen, Dobzansky, the mechanical philosophists, Harvey, Huxley, and far too many others to list them all. Some topics, such as spontaneous generation, quickly made me realize that there is so much more to learn for everyone, including me. In the same vein, I have a renewed interest in learning more about Newton, Einstein, Galileo and others like them who worked mostly outside the realm of biology, as well as more about the history of physics, chemistry, and geology in general. I think another main point I learned is to be more open-minded about the nature of science itself, that it is a collective process carried out historically in a variety of ways, and is not always cleancut, and by its nature there are a lot of twists and turns and even dead ends.

I should also add that I last attended school when I finished a master's degree in 1994, and the technology and methods of teaching and learning have changed a lot in a relatively short period of time. Courses that are all or partially online, blogging, and greater use of laptops in the classroom have all come to change my perspective this summer on education. and the various ways it can be accomplished. It has also been reinforced for me that one is never too old or accomplished to stop learning, and that getting stale and bogged down is dangerous both personally and professionally. One of my former supervisors advised me that changing jobs, furthering one's education, and other major shifts in one's career should take place fairly frequently, as this helps to cut down on complacency and getting in a rut. This is especially true for teachers, because it is the students that get short-changed when teachers are lackadaisical, bored, or under-prepared.

Week 4 Day 5 Historiography

My final reading for this course is from Bauer, chapters 4 and 5, respectively titled "Other Fables About Science" and "Imperfections of the Filter". Some of the fables the author discusses include if science is factual, if science knowledge is like a map, if successful prediction necessarily makes a theory correct, if science is truly open-minded, if scientists should publish all their data and give credit to those whose work they build on, if science is self-correcting, and if great scientists can speak for science. Bauer addresses each of these ideas, and provides much evidence and logic as to why they are not always true, and therefore fables, as he calls them. I think again it all goes back to the point that as long as humans do science, human foibles will by defintion be part of the process. I have to reiterate that I don't think this necessarily calls for a total sacking and debunking of the scientific method. At the same time I agree with Bauer on nearly every point, except for ultimately why he is so against the scientific method. I also must restate that the concurrent reading of The Double Helix is extremely enlightening, even if Bauer references one observer who says Watson "has given his more spontaneous acts the color of calculation". Bauer also suggests Watson downplays the amount of intense reading and thinking that he and Crick had to do, although I don't agree with this personally, based on my reading of the book.

In chapter five he continues by discussing the imperfections of the knowledge filter, so he is acknowledging it is not perfect either, because current knowledge may be misleading, scientists cannot be completely objective, and human institutions function imperfectly. Once again Bauer is showing that science is much more of a winding road, filled with pot-holes, than most science textbooks make it out to be. These misconceptions are then perpetuated by students and teachers who rely too heavily on the texts, and not on original and solid secondary sources. It is important for students to see that scientists are human, do not always work the same way, and science is not a straight line process, either in time or content. The idea of scientists using "reality therapy" was new and surprising to me, in how complete objectivity may not be reachable, but consensus is more likely to come about.

As to what from this course makes more sense to me now, I would have to say Bauer's explanation of Kuhn's revolutions has made his concepts more understandable to me. The whole of the Bauer reading will affect me as a science educator in bringing terminology and relative placement to the various ways that science works, so I can more effectively relate these ideas to my students and colleagues, and help in the future if I have the opportunity to train prospective science teachers at the university level.

I was pleased to see a reference to Carl Sagan, who is by far one of my favorite authors, and through his writings one of the best science teachers ever.

Bibliographic Note:

Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.

Week 4 Day 5 History of Biology Case Study

I am obviously going to read this entire book, as it is virtually impossible to put down. Today though I am to focus my discussion on responses by Klug (pp. 153-158), Stent (pp.161-175), Lewontin (pp. 185-187), Sinsheimer (pp. 191-194), Merton (pp. 213-218), and Medawar (pp.218-224).

I realized I did not not have the Norton Critical Edition, so I ordered it from Amazon and had it shipped overnight, so I should have it by Friday and be able to finish up my postings. Now having received the book and finished my assigned readings, I am glad I did because it always helps to get a variety of perspectives on an issue. Klug basically defends Franklin, and suggests that she was not far from figuring out the DNA structure herself. I am not so sure about this, but it cannot be denied that her work was instrumental to the collective effort that resulted in the final outcome. Personally, I feel she should have been included in the Nobel award group with Wilkins, Crick, and Watson. Stent covers the other reviews and discussions of The Double Helix and I agreed with him for the most part, in that Lewontin and Sinsheimer were somewhat offbase in their replies, and Merton and Medawar better understood, represented, and explained what was going on in Watson's accounts of the discovery of the double-helix.

Merton and Medawar pretty much describe the book as I saw it, whereas Lewontin and Sinsheimer are needlessly derisive and derogatory toward Watson. I felt Watson came across as somewhat of a conniver, even sly, but in positive way, as he ultimately was the best "puzzle-solver" of the group while Crick was the true intellect and Franklin, Donahue, Wilkins and others provided substantial data, ideas, and support as well. By the way, I intend to read all of the Norton Critical Edition as time permits. Waddington and Chargaff seem to be jealous, to a certain extent. I for one found reading The Double Helix to be one of the most informative, exciting, and eye-opening science related tomes I have ever come across.

I liked that Medawar emphasized the experiments of Griffith and their importance, even if Watson chose not to. I also noticed that a couple of times even these distinguished reviewers fall into the trap that Mendel's work was "rediscovered" in 1900. Another important point was the discussion that practicing scientists seem to take the history of science for granted sometimes, but it is explained that since science is a cumulative process, the practioners are dependent on their history, just maybe not immediately cognizant of it. I am a science teacher, but I have done original research at various times, and I think that colored my view in the past as well, to a certain extent. This summer has definitely helped to change that.



Bibliographic Note:

James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA-Norton Critical Edition,(W.W. Norton & Company, 1981). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."

Further Reading Note:

I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.

Week 4 Day 4 Historiography

Today's reading is chapter 3, continuing from Bauer, on "How Science Really Works". In it he describes the various mechanisms by which science progresses, including what he calls the jigsaw puzzle and the knowledge filter, and compares both against the myth of the scientific method. I am starting to think that Bauer has basically taken one simple yet important idea and stretched it out into several chapters. The point he seems to be stuck on is that science by definition is a human endeavor, and scientists by definition are human and obviously are going to act that way. I feel he is going way overboard in denigrating and deemphasizing the scientific method. I believe it is one of several methods by which science gets done, and probably the most important and common one. Just because not all the great scientists have used it, and just because all the great discoveries have not necessarily come about through it, that doesn't mean it's a myth or a negative thing.

As far as what is new and surprising, the filter and the puzzle concepts are interesting ways of representing how science gets done, but neither is really new or surprising to anyone who teaches or does science. It's just that we may not have consciously called them that or tried to conceptualize the scientific process in those terms. Of course I guess that is also the main idea, in that by naming, pointing out, and describing them the author is forcing me to think about them. In that sense I think this reading is beneficial, and I actually agree for the most part with Bauer. He points out that the objectivity of science is not due to the individuals but the collective body of science policing itself over time. I also agree with him that the history of science must be portrayed accurately, and not molded into a particular set of concrete steps that all scientists have and must follow. This is simply not true, and not should be presented as such.

I think Bauer is also incomplete, from my point of view as a science teacher, because I am at the mercy of the state and federal governments and my school district as to what is considered to be scientific literacy, especially as it relates to the all important standardized testing now so prevalent. I am not sure what to do about that problem, at this point. His graph on page 53 of the increase in the number of science journals is interesting, as is also him bringing up the cold fusion debacle, especially in light of my just having read of no less that Linus Pauling making a fundamental chemical error in a paper. He also cites Kuhn, from one of my earliest readings, and seems to defend his ideas to a certain extent. Of note also is his claim that pseudoscience is such because of the collective nature of science, because anything could be considered scientific if the only standard is whether the scientific method can be applied to it or not.

He closes by attributing the successes of science to the filter and the puzzle, and not to the scientific method. I think as a science educator this reading will help reinforce for me to emphasize the variety of ways science progresses and the collective nature of science. I don't think we can just throw out what is called the scientific method as a basic framework for problem solving in and out of science classes, and especially as long as teachers, students, and schools are held accountable by standardized tests that still treat it as the only way to do science.

Bibliographic Note:

Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.

Week 4 Day 4 History of Biology Case Study

Today's discussion focuses on pages 71-133 from The Double Helix. I intended to finish reading the book before I commented on any of it, and fourtunately was able to. In these pages Watson and Crick are facing starts and stops in their drive to elucidate the structure of DNA. Personal infighting, administrative delays, and lack of some of the necessary data among other things are making their task difficult, to say the least, before they finally triumph. The reactions of Bragg, Wilkins, Franklin and others are telling, in my opinion. Watson continues to make things interesting with his humor and writing style, and his descriptions of Crick's behavior in particular are both illuminating and wry. It's also interesting that Linus Pauling published a paper with a fundamental chemical error.

I think there is definitely room for "personal styles" of research in science, and they are glaringly obvious in this book. Franklin seemed to be introverted, dedicated, and somewhat of a "techie" as she kept to herself in the lab, and also held her work closely. Watson's asides about her, including those about her appearance, were intriguing. Crick was the "idea man", the theorotician whose intellect kept him bounding from one problem to another, and was usually in conflict with Bragg. It seems he never stopped talking, and usually his ideas were fruitful ones, at least in the long run. Watson seemed to lurk around, taking ideas and data when and where he could find them, and yet he always seemed to be able to help fit those pieces together. Linus Pauling is one of the most fascinating characters in the book, and I intend to read more about him. He almost seemed to be the larger than life "scientist as showman" with his personality and tremendous intellect. Wilkins, Bragg, and others featured in the book all seem to have their own personal styles of research as well. I am also seeing the point in reading Bauer and Watson simultaneously, as I can relate many points Bauer makes to the real life scientists in The Double Helix. Watson also explains how attitudes and social mores vary from country to country, because the more genteel British wouldn't think of usurping someone else's work, but the crude Americans and wily French have no problems with it, as the goal is to beat everyone else to the punch, by whatever means necessary. It's interesting in this light that Watson is the only American in the group!

I think in the cases of Wilkins and Franklin, their particular research styles ultimately held them back to a certain extent, especially their tendency to withhold ideas and data, and cling to a specific hypothesis or technique. Crick's talkativeness seemed to help him draw ideas from others, and Watson was sort of the ultimate puzzle-solver, who was open-minded and willing and able to cobble together the pieces of data and ideas he glommed from others. "Personal styles"of research show us that there really is no one, tried and true "scientific method" that has always been applied by everyone. The fact that this reading, highlighting some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, exhibits such a diversity of thinking and research styles is about the best evidence possible of this.

As an aside, I remember using Luria broth in the microbiology lab, now I am more familiar with the gentlemann for whom it is named!

Bibliographic Note:

James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."

Further Reading Note:

I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.

Week 4 Day 3 Historiography

Today's historiography assignment is chapter 2 in Bauer. Honestly, I just finished reading this chapter, and am at a bit of a loss as to how to begin. It seemed Bauer was throwing out a lot of "common-sense" items that any open-minded, humble, and knowledgeable science educator takes more or less for granted anyway. I think one of his main points is that science by definition is the domain of human beings, with all the positives and negatives that necessarily involves. I guess part of my problem with this chapter, as Dr. Magruder and I discussed in person previously, is that I tend to have a generous and liberal view of the so-called scientific method, and even though I think it is an excellent framework and starting point for science students, I have never labored under the delusion that all science has always been done that way. I recall times my students might question how viewing specimens microscopically and drawing them could be considered an "experiment", or building DNA models from clay or beads. I would explain to them that there are a multitude of ways that "science" gets done, and I don't think it's by chance that I also started reading The Double Helix today!

However, despite what I typed in the first paragraph, the title of the chapter, "The So-Called Scientific Method", pretty much gives the reader the thrust of the text. Bauer mentions Bacon and Popper, and I would like to point out here that I have always discouraged my students from using the words "proven" or "disproven". I believe one should always leave the window cracked ever so slightly in case a point needs to be reevaluated in light of new data. He goes on to distinguish and discuss theoretical and experimental science, and I got a chuckle from the notion that biologists divorce three times more often on the average than chemists, physicists, and geologists. The term "anecdotal evidence" came to mind immediately! It is interesting how Bauer breaks down the scientific communities and subdisciplines and compares and contrasts them, including the relative amount of mathematics required, and whether this bears on how "scientific" an area of study actually is. This is relevant to me, because I try to impart to my students the meaning of qualitative versus quantitative data, and how they can each be important relative to the type of study being done. I think another consideration that Bauer should touch on, as I'm sure he does, is pure versus applied science (technology), and the idea of studying something just to find out about it as opposed to trying to find a solution to a specific problem. It's also important to address that those applications may be good or bad, depending on what they are and the viewpoint of the observer.

Bauer goes on to say that we currently have a much better understanding of the history of science, and this is important because he is emphasizing much of what I learned earlier in this course concerning rated "X" history, Whiggism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory. He states that we call those that are science literate that because they subscribe to many of those things I just mentioned. He makes another interesting point, and that is that physicists are most often promoted to leadership and administrative positions, and this is problematic for several reasons. I have to agree with him here. He concludes with the notion that the myth of the scientific method actually promotes less than ethical behavior, hubris, and short-cutting.

Bibliographic Note:

Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.

Week 4 Day 3 History of Biology Case Study

I am excited about today's case study, specifically pages 1-70 from Watson's well-known book. One of the first things I noticed was Watson's sly sense of humor, this helped to make the selection truly enjoyable to read. I found myself chuckling out loud more than once at some of his comments and maneuverings. It would be interesting to read the perspectives of the other major characters to see how or if they correlate with Watson's recollections of events. The author strikes me as mischievous and almost devious in his administrative and scientific dealings with his colleagues and superiors. He certainly seemed to enjoy socializing, sometimes with alcohol, and apparently had an eye for the ladies as well. Of course this is also keeping in mind his tremendous intellect, even though my judgement so far is that Crick was the superior thinker of the two.

I think scientists at least give lip service to a common "code of conduct", and in fact most scientists adhere to it. As Bauer points out, scientists are human after all, and fraught with the same weaknesses as any other member of society. I think sometimes the pressure to produce papers or make notable breakthroughs is overwhelming, and as Bauer also says sometimes the temptation to cut corners is too strong as well. Additionally, sometimes the interpersonal dynamics in a lab or a department can foster less than ethical behavior. In my opinion the code of conduct is simply that you give credit where credit is due, and if you are going to use someone else's work or ideas be sure you are up front about it and have their blessing or even better their cooperation. I think Bragg's and Watson's characterization of the code of conduct is best illustrated by the incident in chapter eight wherein Crick feels Bragg used one of his ideas in a paper without crediting him and becomes furious, almost to the point of leaving. Bragg eventually acknowledges that they must have had the same idea independently. The problem here is in perspective, because it is Watson relating the story, and neither Crick nor Bragg are able to directly their versions of events. Watson seems to have no problem with the fact that he personally relied heavily on Crick's intuitions and the work of many others like Franklin, Pauling, and Wilkins in developing the idea of the self-replicating double helix of DNA. No doubt Watson helped bring it all together, but his own code of conduct was questionable in other ways, such as his dealings with the fellowship office in Washington.

This book has opened my eyes to some aspects of the development of the model of DNA that I had no knowledge of, and it has reinforced my prior understanding in some areas. For instance, I feel even more strongly now that Rosalind Franklin should have been included as a Nobel prize winner, as all indications are her work was indispensable to Watson and Crick's collaboration. Also, similar to how I felt about Mendel, I see Watson especially, but also the other major characters in the book, in more human terms, and not just as some hagiographic sidebar in one of my texts. Readings such as this are invaluable to me as a science educator in properly relating the progress of science to my students.

Bibliographic Note:

James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968). "By identifying the structure of DNA, the molecule of life, Francis Crick and James Watson revolutionized biochemistry and won themselves a Nobel Prize. At the time, Watson was only twenty-four, a brilliant young zoologist hungry to make his mark. His uncompromisingly honest account of the heady days of their thrilling sprint against other world-class researchers to solve one of science's greatest unsolved mysteries gives a dazzlingly clear picture of a world of brilliant scientists with great gifts, very human ambitions, and bitter rivalries. With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of the life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life. He is impressed by the achievements of the young man he was, but clear-eyed about his limitations. Never has such a brilliant scientist also been so gifted, and so truthful, in capturing in words the flavor of his work."

Further Reading Note:

I intend to read The Molecular Biology of the Gene, by Watson. I would also like to review works by Franklin, Pauling, Wilkins and other contemporaries, competitors, and workers who Watson and Crick drew from in their own studies.

Week 4 Day 2 Historiography

This assignment concerns the first chapter from Bauer, and I am to compare and contrast his views with traditional textbook presentations of the nature of science. The first point is to define the three components that constitute the definition of what science literacy actually is. One of my early thoughts in reading this selection was that maybe we should start identifying as early as possible and putting on a separate educational track the potential scientists among our students. I then began to realize that Bauer's main point is that all of our knowledge, including science, is theory-based, and subject to change. Science literacy, he says, like all types of literacy, should be ecouraged because it is a good thing, not as a tool to accomplish something else. Bauer envisions "STS", or science, tecnology, and society studies being incorporated to everyone's benefit, from the layperson to scientists and engineers.

The author states that science as it is currently taught, using textbooks, is too dogmatic and leaves out the "fits and starts" that good history of science can convey as part of the total picture. Basically, I think he is saying that students need some basic science facts and some training in scientific process, but the emphasis should be on understanding the role of science in society and technology. This would have surprised me a few weeks ago, but in the context of what I have learned this summer it seems logical. I have always tried to help my students see how their science lessons fit into the bigger picture, or better yet, I try to give them the tools with which they will be able to figure those things out for themselves. I have relied less on textbooks than most teachers I know, partially because of my original mentor teacher, and partially perhaps subconsciously for the reasons Bauer gives. I am finding that some of what I am reading this summer I have sort of unknowingly at least been trying to do throughout my career as an educator, even if I didn't have the terms and a defined concept in my mind.

I believe in giving the students a certain base of information predicated on currently accepted ideas, using the scientific method as a basic framework to support the notion of problem-solving, and then getting them to think about how it all fits into the bigger picture of their lives in modern society. The operative word here is think. The key is helping a person develop the ability to make judgements and formulate informed opinions from the perspective of a broad world-view, complete with historical perspectives. This is similar to Bauer's push for more STS and less science, and I feel he makes a strong case, but of course I've only read the first chapter so far.

One point that I must raise here is that science teachers, and for that matter all teachers today, are under enormous pressure to see to it that students attain a certain level of proficiency on standardized tests. Bauer rips this kind of testing at the beginning of the chapter. School funding is actually tied to this now, and even the school's and teacher's certifications in some cases. I guess that at certain times this summer I've gotten excited and enthused about various components of my studies, and then reality sinks in in terms of practicality and applicability. I think the main impact of this reading on me is to encourage me that I have for the most part done the right thing for most of my career and will continue to do so, with some adjustments here and there. I also think that I will be able to see more clearly the picture that Bauer is painting as I progress through the chapters, and will be able to refer back to this discussion.

Bibliographic Note:

Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method, (Urbana and Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 1994). Bauer, chemistry professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, upends current contentions about science literacy in a small, dense book that could be the nucleus of a restructuring of how science works in our culture, or, in the author's terms, how its reputation works.

Week 4 Day 2 History of Biology Survey

Today's assignment consisted of reading chapters 6-9 and the epilogue from Farber. I am glad I purchased this book, as I have found Farber to be easy to read, extremely informative, and well organized, and I intended to read the entire volume even if it hadn't been assigned for this course. I did notice that Farber refers to the "rediscovery" of Mendel's work in 1900, I guess he hadn't read Brannigan's chapter that I did! Initially he tackles the separation of physiology or function from natural history and its deviation into its own discipline(s). Bichat's tranfusion experiments on dogs in particular got my attention. His main point here is the transition from traditional natural history collecting, naming, and grouping to more of an emphasis on experimental method, even to the point of trying to reduce biology strictly to the level of physics. It's also interesting that in this day and age of animal rights, some of the early physiology experiments seemed rather gruesome, and yet in light of the times few objected to them. He addresses the use of the word biology as we know it today and the Modern Synthesis, which interestingly helped lead to even more specialization under the umbrella of biology.

One chapter is devoted to private and public zoos, gardens, museums, and collections in what Farber calls the Victorian Golden Age of natural history. The story of Jumbo and P.T. Barnum was enlightening and amusing, even though Jumbo tragically was run over by a train, and his remains were lost in a fire. He also delves into the development of ecology or environmental science, and conservation efforts. He invokes Leopold, Thoreau, and others, but surprisingly and sadly to me he did not mention Edward Abbey, who in my opinion was just as important in this area. I was pleased to see Virchow mentioned regarding cell theory, however. Going back to the Modern Synthesis, Farber's discussion of how natural history, inheritance, and evolution came together was eye-opening for me. Juian Huxley, Dobzhansky, Morgan, and Mayr all played key roles, but of course it was Darwin's evolutionary theory that provided the backbone by "viewing all biological knowledge as the result of a long historical process". I was curious to see if Hardy and Weinberg would be mentioned in relation to the synthesis of biological thought but they were not. I always felt their mathematical treatment of variation in a gene pool was critical to an understanding of the process for my students.

E.O. Wilson's many achievements and contributions are the focus of the final chapter, from ant pheromones to the introduction of the field of sociobiology. I have a renewed appreciation for this man and his life, and am encouraged to read more of his works. Farber encapsulates the chronological perspective and continuing importance of natural history in his epilogue. I feel his book has given me a comprehensive and balanced view of the history of this discipline, and his writing style has helped me better understand some of the other readings of this course, as well as some of my own prior knowledge. I feel better equipped as a teacher to present and discuss these topics with my students and colleagues as well. We also through natural history can take advantage of younger student's innate curiosity about the world around them and help expand and build on that through the rest of their education.

Bibliographic Note:

Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).

Further Reading Note:

I would like to view some of the works by Magendie, Hooker, Huxley, Mayr, Virchow, Dobzhansky, and Wilson.

Week 4 Day 1 History of Biology Case Study

Today's lesson requires a case study dealing with spontaneous generation including a lengthy reading from Farley consisting of chapters 1-6. There is also an optional reading of a paper dealing with Pasteur, which I obtained, read, and will discuss. Spontaneous generation has always been one of my favorite topics to both teach and study, for several reasons. Much of modern microbiology's tools and techniques came about due to scientists studying this topic, and some of science's classic experiments arose from this area of investigation. Students' interest can be heightened with descriptions of some of the experiments and opinions concerning this topic, and there is the potential conundrum that after working so hard and long to "disprove" spontaneous generation, at least under the conditions of the earth today, it is still a relevant topic concerning how life may have originated on earth and even on other planets, as we begin to reach and study them closely.

I learned several important points right away in the introduction, specifically the difference between abiogenesis and heterogenesis, and why the distinction is important. This becomes especially crucial when Pasteur undertakes work in this area. Farley also explains the significance of the term "by chance" as part of the definition of spontaneous generation and how the meaning has changed over the years. He is also determined to point out the Whiggish tendencies inherent in how this topic has been presented over time in textbooks and by teachers, including myself. As I continued reading I learned that parasitic worms and their reproduction played a major role in the debate concerning spontaneous generation, and this was a consideration I had not encountered before. It dawned on me while reading that this subject provides an interesting window into science in general, its history, and most of the philosophies and movements I have come across this summer. So many of the names and ideas from previous readings were to be found in these chapters from Farley that I have almost come to regard spontaneous generation as being central to the development and history of science, and of course in particular biology.

I learned more about the Naturphilosophen, the concept of unity, and the Germans' work with parasitic worms and belief in spontaneous generation. At around the same time Lamarck and Cuvier were disagreeing on this topic in France, apparently with major political and societal implications. Concurrently in Britain there was strong theology-based oppostion to spontaneous generation, and Priestly and his experiments are prominently discussed. Farley concludes that the notion that Redi and Spallanzani had reduced spontaneous generation to an archaic argument in the early 1800s is absurd, as it goes on into the 20th century in some cases.

Yeast seemed to become a major part of the controversy as the 1800s progressed, and workers such as Schleiden, Schwann, Muller, Virchow, Dujardin, and Pasteur begin to enter into the reading at this point. I am beginning to see how throughout this century spontaneous generation vacillated between acceptance and rejection. Farley states that even though Pasteur seemingly laid the idea to rest in the 1860s, this primarily applied to France, and it actually made a comeback in England and Germany. The reading concludes by discussing Pasteur and his famous experiments, and some I did not know about. It was interesting how the author ties so much of this chapter to the politics of the time as well, particularly regarding Pasteur. This reading is driving home the point for me that I would definitely benefit from one of the general history of science overview courses, and possibly even more in the philosophy of science. The names, concepts, and time frames can almost be overwhelming sometimes.

The essay on Pateur provided several memorable points for me to discuss. I didn't realize Pasteur worked in such a variety of scientific areas, especially physics, as I knew of him mainly due to his work in microbiology. The authors do point out that his work in this area did flow into his later work for which he is better known. The notion I have learned this summer about consulting original sources still holds true, in this case a detailed discussion of Pateur's lab notebooks, with the caveat that even Pasteur was prone to dramatic flourishes and political maneuvering sometimes in recounting his studies. Of course I learned quite a bit about how optical isomers were first discovered, Auguste Laurent, and I also found out Pasteur was something of a political creature. Another point I would emphasize from this reading is that this is another of those famous, supposed "Eureka!" moments in science that in reality was a cumulative and painstaking longterm process, that also depended to some extent on the previous work of others.

Bibliographic Note:

John Farley,The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). According to John Farley, the most accepted definition of spontaneous generation is "that some living entities may arise suddenly by chance from matter independently of any parent". As a part of the history of science, the story of spontaneous generation, which can be traced back to Aristotle, has been seen as a "classic" case of how modern scientific techniques debunked a persistent myth.

Gerald L. Geison and James A. Secord, "Pasteur and the Process of Discovery", Isis, 79 (1988): 6-36. An essay on whether Pasteur's socio-political concerns helped motivate the direction of his research.

Further Reading Note:

Upon my next visit to the collections I would like to view any available original works by Pasteur, Tyndall, Spallanzani, Redi, and anyone else associated with the idea of abiogenesis.

Week 3 Day 5 History of Biology Case Study

As a biology teacher I was probably as familiar coming into this course with Gregor Mendel and his experiments on plant hybrids as any other figure from the history of biology, excepting maybe Darwin, Watson, and Crick. Once again, I find there was quite a bit more I needed to know, and several points that I have been guilty of misrepresenting to my students over the years. I accept part of the blame for this, but I also must say that to a certain extent I was victimized by my own education, from grade school on, and in particular by the over-reliance on textbooks and perpetuation of many of the cliches, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience rampant in American education. At the same time, I am personally trying to do something about this by continuing my education, broadening my perspective, focusing on being a better science teacher, and hopefully passing on some of what I learn to other teachers as well as my students.

I have always been fascinated by Mendel, and after reading the Masterworks of Discovery edition on his experiments and life he is more relatable than ever to me. Mendel was a science teacher from an agricultural family who enjoyed chess and meteorology. He had difficulty dealing with the sick and injured (his own health was troublesome for him as well), and was apparently a gifted administrator and religious figure, who nevertheless rarely mixed his science and theology. In these readings I came across Schleiden and Schwann for the first time in this course, and it got me thinking that I would have liked to have included more on the historical aspects of the development of cell theory. Of course, this is an opportunity for further reading and study on my own. Mendel interacted with many famous scientists throughout his life, and even studied under the famous Doppler.

Secord and Monaghan do a wonderful job of explaining the Chi-square statistical method, and in doing so make a strong case that Mendel and/or his assistants never actually "fudged" his data as his been suggested by some. They also address the issue that Mendel was actually concerned with hybridization of plants, and never fundamentally stated the laws of heredity and certainly never approached the idea of a gene. The authors make Mendel's experiments easily understandable, and seem to be in agreement with Allchin's points from earlier in the course, for the most part, as Mendel never really had a clear hypothesis.

Brannigan, meanwhile, makes a strong case that in my opinion lays to rest the idea that Mendel's work was forgotten until the early 1900s, as he gives many documented examples of how various workers were using and referencing Mendel up to then and after as well. Unfortunately, some were even apparently using his ideas and results without actually giving Mendel credit. He discusses scientists such as Naudin who were doing similar work before or at the same time as Mendel, other hybridists who did much the same as Mendel but without the ratios, and he discusses Darwin's idea of pangenesis and the part Mendel's work played in the ongoing evolution controversy. It is also impressive to me that Mendel was one of the first to begin to apply mathematics to biology, but then he had taught physics and apparently was well-schooled at the University of Vienna. Bateson and the biometricians provided an interesting component of this reading as well. Brannigan concludes that Mendel was not as obscure as many think, and his paper was misread by some and taken correctly by others concerning evoution, natural selection, variation, and heredity. I have a hard time with any idea that Mendel's work conflicted with religion, as Mendel himself, a monk and priest, scrupulously kept those domains separate, as I feel they should be.

Bibliographic Note:

Augustine Brannigan, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries, (Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1981). I was concerned with chapter 6 on Mendel.

Alain F. Corcos and Floyd V. Monaghan, Gregor Mendel's Experiments on Plant Hybrids: A Guided Study, (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1993). A comprehensive look at Mendel and his work.

Further Reading Note:

Upon my next visit to the Collections I would like view some of Mendel's available original work.

Week 3 Day 3 Research Methods

This assignment consisted of a comparison of the search results obtained using Google and those obtained using Google Scholar. I decided to use Rhea darwinii, the bird Darwin famously realized he had just eaten, after searching intently for it. Farber mentions it in chapter five of Finding Order in Nature. A search on Google yielded general encyclopedic descriptions of the bird, for the most part, and references to natural history museums, etc. A search using Google Scholar, however, obtained mostly links to scientific publications, and especially links to original works by Darwin. For instance, the first link was to a 1961 article from The Geographical Journal titled "Man and the Environment in the South Chilean Islands". I also noticed that I could directly access the articles, since I had logged in through the OU libraries. When I did the same on Google Scholar without logging in, the articles were usually not available. This gives me another valuable tool in my research arsenal, and reinforces previous notions about using direct, original, and scientifically sound references as much as possible.

Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhea+darwinii&btnG=Google+Search

Google Scholar:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rhea+darwinii&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Week 3 Day 4 History of Biology Case Studies

These articles, despite the time frames they are generally concerned with, resonate well today, because as a science teacher in the northeastern part of Oklahoma I encounter almost daily resistance to the idea of evolution. Some of it is due to parents, students and even fellow professionals being misinformed or underinformed, but of course much of it is due to strong personal and community-based religious beliefs. As an educator it is my duty to instruct my students as to the current state of scientific thought, but as this course and these essays in particular demonstrate, one always has to incorporate how historical, cultural, and societal institutions have helped to shape and influence the current state of thinking. I am not particularly religious myself, but partially out of professional self-preservation instincts and partially out of respect for others' viewpoints I try to maintain an open mind and remind my students that science (in particular evolution) and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and acknowledging that we can figure out how natural processes occur without completely denying religion and spirituality. I have a difficult time with the "hard-liners", then and now, who invoked spontaneous generation and the origin of life on earth to deny evolution or equated Darwinism with atheism. Even today the standard response from many of my students concerning any mention of Darwin or evolution is that there is no way we were once monkeys, or descended from monkeys, and that's about as far as their knowledge or line of reasoning can be extended. I have had students and parents tell me that the bible actually states Darwin was wrong and there is no such thing as evolution.

Jensen's article describes a well known exchange that took place at a scientific meeting in 1860, between the Bishop of Oxford and a young scientist and friend of Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, concerning Darwin and his work. This was the incident that apparently ignited and inflamed the rift between science and religion that has not been completely resolved to this day. The essay describes events leading up to the "debate", the conversation itself, and what transpired afterward. Apparently what set things off was the Bishop asking Huxley if he would prefer a simian for a grandfather or grandmother. Huxley calmly replied he would rather have a monkey for a grandfather than someone like Wilberforce, and Huxley preoceeded to defend Darwin's theory as the best explanation that had been generated to that point in time for the origin of species. It seems others, and Joseph Hooker in particular, also defended Darwin's theory, and the audience was more or less on their side. Of course both sides felt they had emerged victorious in the impromptu "debate". Jensen points out that the Darwin supporters were not only in opposition to the religious figures, but also many of the older and more established scientists, and this episode prompted a heightened sense of persecution among the Darwinites. He also mentions how modern television has continued the drama, when actually there was a certain degree of wit and playfulness involved. He concludes that the general relationship between religion and science was affected by the exchange, and the chasm was widened.

The essay on the Scopes trial reinforced for me a danger I have always warned my students of, and that is learning one's history, science, and other subjects from popular culture sources. Maybe it's better to have seen the play or movie Inherit the Wind than to have never been exposed to the Scopes trial and its sigificance at all, but again I am reminded to consult original works and/or informed, legitimate secondary works by scholars whenever possible. The focus of Larson's essay was what really happened before, during, and after the famous "monkey trial", and a lot of my own misconceptions or lack of knowledge have been rectified. One of the most interesting points was that Scopes was never actually jailed, and in fact the entire episode originated as a maufactured ploy by the town of Dayton to gain publicity, and the fledgling ACLU to try to void Tennesse's new antievolution law. I was also not aware that William Jennings Bryan passed away just days after the trial concluded. Both essays discussed Bryan indeatil, and I was incredulous that he actually had no problem with evolution itself, but he felt the majority of Americans did and therefore fought against it. Larson concludes that the trial was effectively a draw, winning no converts to either side, but further rallying many of those already in either camp.

The final reading was Numbers' essay on creationism. I wished it had been current enough to give me more information on the current idea of intelligent design, but it did extend into the 1980s and therefore discussed its origins and early attempts by creationists to "scientize" their ideas. I was so enthused by this reading I went back and perused the previous essay in God and Nature dealing with the evangelical reaction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. I learned some interesting points about Kant and the mechanistic philosophy that helped me sort out some of the concepts from earlier in this course. I was also surprised to see Popper (who I admit I don't know much about), Bacon, Bateson, Kuhn, and others cited by the creationists to support their theologies! I was stunned by the lengths Price and others went in trying to mold biblical ideas into a scientific framework, how powerful the churches were and are in shaping public opinion, Bryan's fanatacism, and the backlash against universities, students, professors, and education in general. All this in a country that owes much of its economy and standing in the world to our scientific and technological prowess.

Bibliographic Note:

Vernon J. Jensen, "Return to the Wilberforce-Huxley Debate". British Journal for the History of Science 21 (1988): 161-179.

Edward J. Larson, "The Scopes Trial in History and Legend," in When Science and Christianity Meet, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 245-264. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003).

Ronald L. Numbers, "The Creationists," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, pp. 391-423. (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1986).

Further Reading Note:

These essays cite numerous works I would like to review in the future, especially in light of the modern debate facing science teachers and society in general concerning evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in the classroom.

Week 3 Day 3 History of Biology Case Study

Yet another fascinating reading, this time focused on the reaction to Darwin's theory of natural selection, across all categories and levels of society. Dr. Magruder provided an article dealing with the evangelical reaction, and I also read chapter five in Farber. I think the most surprising aspect of the first reading is that both men in question are respected religious leaders, and yet they are also scientists and seem open-minded and even receptive to many of Darwin's points. They seem to question natural selection and evolution from a scientific angle, and are not inherently hostile to it on religious grounds. Apparently one of the main sticking-points at the time was the debate over the age of the earth, and that most believed the earth simply wasn't old enough to have supported the long-term process of evolution. This was based on both religious viewpoints in some cases, and on the science of the time.

As an aside here I would like to mention that this week I was fortunate to be able to visit the Oklahoma Aquarium in Jenks. This is an outstanding facility I intend to incorporate into my teaching, but I mention it here because as I viewed the impressive variety of this collection of aquatic life I found my thoughts shifting to my readings for this course, in particular Darwin's emphasis of the variety and distribution of the earth's populations, and how it helped form the basis for his ideas. I may not be able to go back in time and discover as Darwin did, but fortunately we have opportunities like this available to us to help us appreciate what it must have been like. I also recently viewed the film Master and Commander, and have a fortified appreciation for the segments in which the ship's doctor, who is also a naturalist, has the opportunity to explore the Galapogos Islands and gather specimens. To be able to view and study original works by scientists that character is based on has been a rewarding and enriching experience this summer.

The Wright-Gardiner article made clear to me several important points about Darwin, his work, and how it was viewed by his contemporaries. The three prongs of Darwin's argument are each treated with objectivity and depth by men of science and religion. The problem of the sources of variation, the definition of species, and analogies drawn to support more than one point are all discussed in the context of the times. One point I see as being particularly important is that Darwin did not necessarily have to be able to explain how traits are passed on genetically for natural selection to be valid, but Gray (with his divinely influenced heredity) and others felt without that the whole theory was weakened. The characters mention that Darwin intentionally avoided spontaneous generation and the origin of life, but again, the process of natural selection, while it explains a lot of things, was not really concerned with those questions.

Farber, in chapter five, gives some interesting background on Darwin and his work. I was impressed how Darwin was unafraid to utilize the works of others to prepare the foundation on which he built his ideas. Lyell, Malthus, Linnaeus, Buffon and many others provided key points and I was particularly impressed at how Darwin interacted positively with Wallace, and how Wallace deferred to the older and more established Darwin. I was also pleased to read about other supporters of Darwin, such as Hooker and Huxley. I also was not aware that the Germans, in particular Haeckel, were such strong early proponents of natural selection. Of course not all reaction was in agreement with him, and again Thomson's calculated age of the earth was viewed as problematic for the idea of evolution. Aggaziz, Owen, Gray and others all found fault to one degree or another with Darwin's work. Of course, some like Gray, simply felt the idea was sound but incomplete, lacking a divine or spiritual element.

Bibliographic Note:

Kerry Magruder, "The American Evangelical Reception of Darwin's Theory". An informative and interesting treatment of a meeting between Gardiner and Wright in 1875, with copious footnotes providing many other reading opportunities.

Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order in Nature, (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000).

Further Reading Notes:

Both components of this assignment have many items mentioned and/or cited that I would like to pursue further, especially concerning the reaction to Darwin.

Week 3 Day 2 History of Biology Case Study

I feel remiss in admitting, as a science teacher, I have not read On the Origin of Species in its entirety. Like many, unfortunately, my knowledge of Darwin and his work has come from secondary sources, excerpts, and coursework. One of the main points I have learned this summer, thanks to this course and Dr. Magruder, is that one should utilize original sources as much as possible, and for that I am thankful and intend to do so in the future.

Darwin does avoid technical jargon for the most part. He seems to be interested in making his case as easily comprehended as possible, for even the lay person. I think Darwin wanted all people to be able to first of all understand and secondly appreciate the significance of what he had figured out. To me this was the classic case of people around the world slapping their foreheads and asking themselves why they didn't see this themselves. The elegance of Darwin's work is in, in some ways, its simplicity, and its ability to explain and fit into things in such a universal manner.

Darwin, in the first two chapters, is primarily concerned with laying the foundation of natural selection in terms of the variety found in populations, whether in the wild or domesticated. As is his style, he gives example after example to strongly support his idea of variation, even though he was not right on terms of the basis of that variation yet. Of course it wasn't crucial at that point to identify the exact sources of variation, interms of the mechanics of natural selection. That would come later. In the third chapter he gets into the notion of competition between the individuals that conprise a population, especially species and to a lesser extent genera. He is basically saying that there is only so much in the way of resources such as food, space, etc., and it is natural to assume there is only so much to go around. Populations will continue to grow up to these limits as is their normal tendency.

As a contemporary reader, I can put myself in the postion of being one those saying "Why didn't I think of that?". It's like it was all laid out and in retrospect, even reading it in the time of Darwin himself, the sheer elegance and for lack of a better term common sense in putting the pieces of the puzzle together is almost overwhelming. I could see almost a sense of resentment, coupled of course with the excitement of seeing how the parts of the argument flow together to support and construct the overall idea of natural selection.

I feel the most attractive parts of these chapters would be Darwin's patient, but not pandering way of meticulously explaining and correlating all the data and observations as he lays the foundation for the rest of his text. I would say one of the least attractive features is Darwin not necessarily building his theory from the ground up, but piecing it together from previous work and adding in his own. Given this, as Mayr points out in the introduction, Darwin doesn't use footnotes or a bibliography.

As far as how this reading will impact my own teaching, I intend to finish the book as soon as I can, and I feel I can more comfortably and confidently present the ideas of natural selection and evolution to my students in the future, as well as how they originated and developed over time. This is especially important with the current controversy over creationism in the science classroom.

Bibliographic Note:

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (A Facsimile of the First Edition), (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1964). With an introduction by Ernst Mayr, this is arguably the pre-eminent work in biology, outlining Darwin's theory of natural selection. It was published in 1859.

Further Reading Note:

I purchased this copy and intend to read all of it, and I would like to view all of the Collections' holdings of Darwin.

Week 3 Day 1 History of Biology Survey

Today's reading encompasses the introduction and first four chapters of Farber, although I purchased the book and intend to read it all. Farber points out in the introduction that naming and categorizing are natural human tendencies, oing all the way back to the Genesis story. He distinguishes natural history from "folk biology" because it attempts to group and name plants, animals, and minerals and seeks underlying and overarching relationships and order. He cites the importance of natural history in terms of social, political, economic problems, and describes the conflict between religious and secular views and their interpretations of nature. I remember some of my former professors and teachers stressing to us that biology was no longer the domain of those catching and naming animals and pressing plants, and Farber uses that phrase to explain the importance of natural history and its branches then and now.

The first chapter was interesting because I learned a lot more about Linnaeus and his works, who of course I had heard of, but it also emphsized Buffon and his importance, who I knew very little about until now. I learned how Linnaeus used startling (for the time) sexual imagery to classify plants, that he was religious and linked the study of nature with the worship of God, and that he was somewhat full of himself, apparently. I learned that Buffon was initially known more for his work in the physical sciences, was more secular in his views, and leaned heavily on Aristotle and Pliny in his work. Even though the two were contemporaries, they had different viewpoints and goals as Linnaeus valued naming and classifying, and Buffon sought natural laws through study, comparison, and generalization.

Chapter 2 was concerned with the development of natural history into a scientific discipline from 1760 through 1840. It described the specimen collections of the time, and their social, scientific, and financial importance. Also discussed were the struggles of men like Verreaux and Swainson to find support and financing for their travels and collecting. Paris became for a time the center for natural history, and France was rivaled only by the Dutch. The advances in printing and lithography made knowledge more accessible to the common people, and natural history began to sub-divide into more specific disiplines as well. The works of Audubon and Gould are also discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 3 delves into the debate concerning comparative anatomy, which held significance beyond just how the animal body should be understood. Apparently there were competing ideas championed at this time by Cuvier and Saint-Hilaire, with the latter claiming that anatomical development stressed form rather than function, and the former believing that through comparative anatomy he could unravel the order in nature. Later von Baer and especially Owen further developed these notions further through archetypes and homologies.

The fourth and final chapter in this assigned reading is the jumping off point to Darwin's work, and sets the stage for his ground-breaking ideas. I was not aware of the work of Napoleon Bonaparte's nephew in this field, but allarently it was substantial according to Farber. The chapter discusses the formalization and standardization of classification and nomenclature, with Linnaeus' work forming the basis of it. Advances in taxidermy and other technical innovations are treated here as well. The major concerns at this time were variation and what Farber calls the "species problem", as well as biogeographical and ecological patterns, although the term "ecology" was not in use at the time. Humboldt, Hooker, Owen, Agassiz, and Gunther are all mentioned prominently here.

This reading has stoked my desire to learn more about the development of natural history, biology, and related fields, so I may more effectively convey these important ideas and historical events to my students. It has also better prepared me to understand the context and paradigms in place as Charles Darwin was forming and releasing his ideas, with all of their obvious significance.

Bibliographic Note:

Paul Lawrence Farber, Finding Order In Nature: The Naturalist Tradition From Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson, (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). Farber, professor of the history of science at Oregon State University, examines the almost three-century-long tradition of natural history in this slim book, part of the Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the History of Science series. Natural history, according to Farber, falls between "folk biology" and mainstream science.

Further Reading Note:

Otto Brunfel, Living Images of Plants (1530)

Aristotle, History of Animals

Buffon, Natural History

Linnaeus, Plant Species (1753), Flora Lapponica (1737), and Systema naturae (1735)

the works of Pliny

William Swainson, Zoological Illustrations, (1820-23)

John James Audubon, The Birds of America (1827-38)

the works of John Gould

Georges Cuvier, Animal Kingdom... (1817)

Week 2 Day 5 Historiography

This essay by Allchin concludes Week 2, as well as a series of articles concerned with how-and even whether or not-history of science should be presented in the classroom, including how science and the nature of science is defined philosophically. I think a comparison of the viewpoints of Brush and Allchin basically comes down to this. Neither seems to feel history of science should be included in the classroom, but for different reasons. Brush believes if we are going to drill the scientific method into our students' heads, it is irresponsible to present the historical works of scientists who apparently did not utilize this type of framework in their experiments. Allchin advocates that it is wrong to "shoe-horn" history of science into the mode of hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and exposure to current philosophical attempts to like-wise "shoe-horn" all science would result in confused and misguided science teachers and consequently, confused and misguided science students.

My feelings after reading and thinking about this series of essays are as follows. All history is too important to disregard, including the history of science. I believe a responsible science teacher will continue to promote what we generally call the scientific method because it provides a logical set of steps to follow in problem-solving and a common format that facilitates communication and understanding of ideas between scientists around the globe. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to present any kind of falsification, distortion, or "shoe-horning" of history without clarifying under special circumstances, as I discuss below. I have always believed our goal in education is to say to the students, this is what we know or believe to be true, this is why, and this is how we got there. From there students need to learn to use their own capacities for creative thought and formulate opinions and ideas with the guidance of the teacher and whatever sources the students choose to explore on their own. This can apply to what happened in the past, the current state of thinking, and what may come about in the future. To me it is acceptable to present the works, life, successes, and tribulations of Galileo, Harvey, and others as we know them to have occurred. Scientific processes and outcomes happen in a variety of ways, and it's likewise okay to hypothetically go back and see if Galileo's discovery of the moons of Jupiter roughly fits the scientific method or not, for illustrative purposes. This is as long as students and teachers understand what they are doing and are not knowingly or unknowingly rewriting history. After all, creativity and imagination, coupled with drive, natural curiosity, and hopefully a desire to better all of our lives is what science should be about.

Finally, I feel both Brush and Allchin are maybe a bit rigid, even if their points are valid. I feel Lawson was criticized a bit harshly by Allchin, and the last paper in particular sometimes had a biting and personal tone to it. Judging by some of his responses, Lawson seems to have felt the same way, and I think both are guilty of being somewhat blinded to the concessions made by the other. I did appreciate Allchin's tabulation of the various methods by which science functions, and as always he makes good use of references and strongly supports all of his main points. This series of readings has greatly broadened my perspectives on how I can and should incorporate history of science into my courses in the future.

Bibliographic Note:

Douglas Allchin, "Why Respect for History-and Historical Error-Matters.", Science & Education 15 (2006): 91-111

also see previously cited articles by Allchin, Brush, and Lawson