Interested in reading more?

This fall quarter I have 200 freshmen, all nonscience majors, taking BIOL 104: Human Biology. I'm concerned. What should I teach them? The power and limits of this responsibility overwhelm me. Traditionally, if I follow the most-used textbooks, Human Biology is a survey of the systems: respiratory, digestive, reproductive-about a system a week. But this is one of only two required courses in science they will have, and perhaps the only lab experience. What of the nature of science itself; how much of that can I put in the course? The relationship of form to function is such a central idea in biology; but forgive me, do traditional anatomy and physiology really teach this concept? And what of the greater role of the species in the community, ecosystem, and biosphere? I've got only 10 weeks! Pursuing avoidance, I picked up a copy of Carl Sagan's book A Demon Haunted World (New York, Ballantine Books, 1997). I also saw what I found to be a very exciting movie, Contact. I was intrigued enough to read the novel on which it was based. Both the books and the movie explore the general misunderstanding of the nature of science and, in my mind, contribute to a misunderstanding of the nature of religion. In The Demon Haunted World, Sagan spends most of the time debunking the notion of alien visits and especially alien abduction. But there are so many other science demons out there: evolution, natural/organic products, cloning, the mind-body connection, disease transmission, artificial intelligence, transgenic genes. These and many other subjects have so much good science supporting them but are shrouded in pseudoscience by the general population. In Contact, the scientists are excited to find "The Message" but also demonstrate how excitement must be tempered with skepticism. In contrast, they show the fear, unfounded rapture, suspicion, and entrepreneurial exploitation of the government and the general population. I can't seem to understand why new knowledge, mostly of ourselves, is always so centrally threatening to us, so "demonic." Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Christiaan Barnard, the first in vitro baby, Dolly, life on Mars, all have stirred this primal fear. Do "they" know so little as to be afraid of "us" and what we know? Why is there always the fear of science becoming a revelation religion? Perhaps it's because we surprised them. "They" had no idea that earlier incarnations of Dolly had already given life a try growing in a dish. "They" didn't even know we had meteors from Mars or that anyone was looking for evidence of life on them. "They" are mostly unaware of what a stem cell is, much less that John Gearhart's group at Johns Hopkins University is starting to manipulate them (see story about embryonic stem cells on page 1). It seems that science, if not a revealed religion, is certainly a revealed authority to the general population. The public rarely gets to see the process of science. If they do, it's always presented ex post facto, so neat and orderly. In most cases, science is delivered to the public on the nightly news as "A report in this month's issue of JAMA . . . ." Sometimes the new science is sliced and diced with controversy added so more copies of one magazine are sold than another. How do we stop revealing science as a scary, surprise answer but rather as the very human endeavor that it is? I have to wonder how many science demons exist in my class. How can I shape their thinking, so that when "first contact" really is made (with aliens or our own genes), fear isn't the first response? I've decided to give them the experience of new knowledge with no surprises. We'll look at what we know of human biology and how we came to know it. We'll also look for what we need to know and come to know the persons already asking those questions. We'll look at their methods and ask them what they think so far, so when new knowledge is revealed there are no surprises, maybe just some "I hadn't thought of that" or, in the vernacular of today's students, just "Cool." We can't go after all the demons directly, but maybe when they hear "eggs are bad for you" and in another week hear "eggs are okay," they won't be surprised. Instead, because they know how science works, they will look for a summary of the reports and ask, "How did they come to those conclusions; what does it mean for my family?" When it comes to a decision to be part of a drug trial, they may not understand all the chemistry, but they'll know how a double-blind experiment works. But even more important and empowering, they'll know they can learn to understand. When "they" hear about embryonic stem cell research, they might look for the lab's Web site for more information. And that brings me to your assignment for my class. You have to find a way around the barriers of funding competition and patent rights and let my students see the process. I want my students to be able to learn what you're working on, how you're doing it, and what you tentatively know. They cannot read the primary journals, but they shouldn't have to hear it first from Peter Jennings, either. I'll set the stage and give them some tools. I'll motivate my students to do their part, but you have to help, too. We really need more intermediate science available to the educated person. No more surprises, please. Maybe we'll have a little less fear. Patricia Hauslein is an associate professor of biology and science education at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. E-mail: hauslein@stcloud.msus.edu.

Presenting Science As a Human Endeavor Can Help Take Fear Out Of First Contact

Sep 28, 1997

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of