Category Archives: Academia

Is ‘what is this good for?’ a question to be discouraged?

Posted on by

Larry Moran posts a response to my response to his earlier post on the advisability of putting ethical discussions into science classes. Careful fellow that he is, he’s decided to stick to a single issue per posting, so he starts with “the relationship between science and technology and where ‘ethics’ fits in”. Larry opines:

Part of what we need to do as science teachers is to make sure our students understand the difference between science and technology — between the uses of science and the accumulation of scientific knowledge. …
The goal, as far as I am concerned, is to convince students that knowledge for its own sake is a valuable commodity regardless of whether or not the knowledge can be applied to the betterment (or destruction) of Homo sapiens.

Continue reading→

Teaching about ethics and other sources of controversy in science class.

Posted on by

In a post about curricular issues in genetics and biochemistry courses, Larry Moran raises some good questions:

It’s almost a requirement these days that introductory genetics courses include a section on genetically modified crops. This invariably leads to tutorials, or labs, or essays, about whether GM-foods are a good thing or not. These discussions are usually lots of fun and the students enjoy this part of the course. Professors are convinced they are teaching ethics and that it’s a good thing to show students that ethics is an important part of science.
In introductory biochemistry courses we often have a section on fuel metabolism. That’s the part of biochemistry that deals specifically with how your food is converted to energy. It’s human biochemistry. In that section of the course the Professor often raises the question of proper diet. Is it okay to eat meat? Are trans fatty acids bad for you? Should you be eating carbohydrates? Our experience is that Professors who teach this section often have very strong opinions and their personal ethical stance is portrayed as scientific fact.
These are two different cases. In the first one, the question is whether the value of debating controversial “ethical” issues outweighs the disadvantages. The biggest downside, in my opinion, is the emphasis on technology as opposed to pure basic science. By giving prominence to “ethical” issues we are emphasizing the consequences of genetic knowledge as it relates to the human condition. …
Part of the problem arises from a desire to please the students. How often do we hear the complaint that students aren’t interested in biochemistry and genetics? The students are bored by science so we have to add sections on genetically modified foods and genetic screening to our introductory genetics courses. Isn’t this strange? Rather than concentrate on making the basic science as interesting and exciting as possible, we cater to the students by giving them the topics they think are interesting. That’s no way to educate.
There’s another problem; what is ethics? Sometimes it’s hard to see the difference between simple controversy and ethics. Sometimes it’s hard to define exactly what “ethics” is all about in spite of the fact that “bioethics” is one of the biggest growth industries in science. Here’s where a philosopher or two could weigh in.

Hey, I’m a philosopher! Here’s my take:

Continue reading→

Online party to shut down Berube’s blog.

Posted on by

You may have heard that the very dangerous professor is putting his blog on mothballs so he can play more hockey. But, it’s not over until the WAAGNFNP Minister of Justice says it’s over. And, she says (at comment 71 on this post) “We Are All Giant Nuclear Fireball. Now Party!“:

Le Blogue-WAAGNFNP Blowout Party

WAAGNFNP High Council Club

Saturday, Jan. 13th 8pm Eastern

Doors open at 7:30pm

I’ll be bringing a bag of lemons, a bag of sugar, and a case of Absolute Citron, so make sure you have your USB shotglass handy.

What are our duties toward crackpots?

Posted on by

At the AAS meeting in Seattle, Rob Knop risked his own well-being to get the details on a poster that was, shall we say, waaaay out of the mainstream. Quoth Rob:

Now, don’t get me wrong. There will be a lot of posters with data or theory that turns out to be wrong, and there are a lot of posters that disagree with each other and debate and dispute the best interpretation of the data. That’s the normal process of science. The nuts here… they think they’re participating in the normal process of science, but they do not understand it well enough to realize that they are just cranks, nothing more. “Closed minded” the will call those like me who write them off, or “stuck in the modern paradigm just like those who dismissed Copernicus, Galileo, and Einstein.” Well, no. These folks are off their rocker, and we know it.

Nor is this sort of thing an isolated incident; one of Rob’s commenters points us to this intriguing abstract from an upcoming APS meeting.
I’ve been there. Indeed, I’ve even blogged about it, back in August 2005. Here’s what I wrote:

Continue reading→

A few words on faculty searches.

Posted on by

Chad has an interesting post explaining the timescale of a faculty search at his college. One of the rate-determining steps he notes in the process is the posting of the job (and its deadline for applications):

So, why does it take so long? Well, to start with, you need to post the job and set the deadline so as to obtain a reasonable pool of applicants. Academic job-hunting season traditionally begins in September or thereabouts, so jobs tend to be advertised on major academic sites during September, October, and November. If you post the ad and set the deadline too early, you won’t get many good applicants, because people don’t really start looking before the fall, but if you do things too late, you end up picking from the people who are left over after everybody else has made their offers. We went with December 1 as our deadline, which is maybe a little on the early side, but not ridiculously so.

Continue reading→

Best final exam doodle EVER!

Posted on by

I’m sure I’m not the only academic who receives final exams with doodles (as well as “thank you for the class” and “please don’t fail me!” messages). But I need to share a piece of exam artwork that transcends the bounds of doodling.

Indeed, it is a cartoon illustration that demonstrates good mastery of the concept about which the student was asked on that exam page. (In addition to the drawing, the student presented a perfectly correct and crystal clear written answer to the question. The drawing was an added bonus.)

Let me set up the cartoon with a brief explanation of the question so you can fully appreciate how wonderful it is:

Continue reading→

Something you don’t see every day (during finals week).

Posted on by

I suppose I should have seen this coming. You provide a nice, quite room for the final exam, so why should it be surprising that a student takes this as an invitation to nap? Especially given that this is a student who attended — slept through — just about every class meeting of the term?
At least there was no audible snoring.

What part of ‘course requirement’ isn’t clear?

Posted on by

On my last post, Kristine commented:

My favorite “finals week activity” was defending to two students why they couldn’t take the lab exams three weeks after all of their classmates took it, just because they realized now that they never showed up for class that week. Whew. Ten minutes each, and as emotionally draining as grading 100 exams.

I feel Kristine’s pain. And, I think this raises the larger question of what the problem is that keeps these students from understanding that “course requirements” are things that are required for them to do.

Continue reading→

How’s your week going?

Posted on by

It’s finals week here. My brain hurts, and I’m on what is reputed to be the easier side of the student-professor divide, so I have great empathy for my students at the moment. (At least, for the ones who aren’t trying to put one over on me.)
In the last week, I have:

Continue reading→