Home Page
by Carl Vermeulen*
Introduction to the Unit
In general this new pedagogy covers some of the fundamental, exemplary aspects of the science of molecular biology, and then proceeds into how those things can be done. Considering the "how" of this, one of the major technological items that a teacher should separate out of the biochemical aspects of biology is how molecules are separated, sorted and isolated. The procedures are applicable to all molecules, and not just nucleic acids of various sizes. Thus it is stongly suggested that early in the course, when diffusion, dialysis, centrifugation, etc., are covered, the students' minds are led to recognize that these are widely applicable methods. Thus, later when DNA fragments are produced "scientifically", the students will be able to make intelligent choices regarding how "technologically" to separate and identify those variously sized fragments. Let's show the Chief Grader that your students, at least, will not equate electrophoresis with genetic engineering!
For those of you who have been attending the Fralin Institute's Biotechnology 2001 workshops at Virginia Tech, this unit is not in competition with Fralin. Consider these exercises as preliminary introducers to their program, which is, afterall, bioTECHNOLOGY. It has seemed to this author that there is an awfully big step up between what the students have had before, and what is expected of them when they enter the Fralin-type lab experiences. This unit is an attempt to make that transition between the "before" and the technology easier by adding some of the fundamental concepts of the science in a way that is quick to understand, and relies relatively little on whatever chemistry the students have had before.**
Let us now do and apply some science using vehicles that should not only interest students, but also hard-nosed teachers!
By this time, the students are intellectually ready to attack the real thing - actual lab work, the technology.
WHAT'S NEXT?
One of the deep problems of science education is that there are few glimpses into converting that education into a future livelihood. Most students of biology see only four prospects ahead of them: being a teacher, doctor, dentist or nurse. That is very far from the way things are in this new era of BIOTECHNOLOGY. It is recommended that teachers present a semester-long program of frequent, short inserts that shows that there are "big bucks" in what the students are learning. The pharmaceutical industry is HUGE! As a unit that cuts across almost all aspects of the curriculum, "biotech" is the place to be. From the stock market, to what the companies do for a living, to the ethics, and the theory behind it all, there lies a wonderful vehicle for learning. Just consider this to whet the appetite: companies that deal with stem cell research and application.
EDITORIAL: Starting in the 1960's, this author accompanied "molecular biology" as it broke out of the fields of genetics and biochemistry to become the tail wagging the biological dog. It became one of the most powerful of the "vogue sciences." Biologists in other subdisciplines found themselves being moved to basement offices and out-of-the-way labs. "Mol Bio" was going to be the panacea of biological understanding, and not much else really mattered anymore. In the world-class universities, this vogue is now fading. Yet it is still strongly promoted by the administrators of lesser institutions of higher education, and is the benchmark of excellence at the pre-college level. The idea that "Mol Bio" is a vogue will take a decade or more to fade and take its place among the other subdisciplines of botany, genetics, biochemistry, etc. Afterall, Mol Bio is mostly a technological methodology that uses expensive reagents and equipment. It is a "macho science" that brings in big grants and wonderful overheads in which administrators can luxuriate. Perhaps its predecessor was electron microscopy.
It is interesting to note that among the major biological societies, more often than not the leading presentations have little to do these days with Mol Bio. In another forum, where leading scientists chose the greats from among themselves for TIME/Business Week, there was not one "real Mol Biologist" in the whole group of those which could be called biologists. The closest thing was the "founder" of stem cells. But that researcher decided that trying to molecularly manipulate cells was fraught with dangers of abnormalities. How much better to take some cells molded by evolution and use them! The few chosen esteemed paleoanthropologists and psychologists used "molecular techniques" to fathom some scientific points here and there, but Mol Bio was undeniably merely a method, and not the science of the "big picture."
Therefore, this author hopes it is wisdom to look suspiciously at arenas in the sciences that are glorying in the times of vogue. The winner-scientist will be the perceptive one who selects some little considered area and makes it into the next vogue. This author has a feeling that THE ultimate area will be within ecology. In fact, much of the projects suggested in this website deal with the interactions of organisms - specifically between the prokaryotic and eukaryotic worlds as mutually beneficial partnerships. Already, a number of student groups have been selected to make presentations at professional society meetings on this subject. * "Dr V" was around in the early days of molecular biology. Twice he was called upon as a new graduate student to duplicate work done by a 4th year graduate student and then by a post-doc, who received a lot of publication "milage" out of the finding. Thus "pre-Dr V" was the second, though unsung, person to isolate mRNA (of T4 bacteriophage), and the second person to isolate a specific mRNA (of T4's rII region).
**The teaching of chemistry in high schools is coming more and more under fire because next to nothing is mentioned of carbon compounds. The de facto teaching of organic chemistry has fallen upon the shoulders of biology teachers. The first course in chemistry at the College of William and Mary, for example, is organic chemistry with many biochemical examples thrown in because that is where the "action" is in chemistry. When the chemistry faculty there became aware of the content of A.P. Chemistry, they were shocked. The College Board needs to update its chemistry curriculum. "Mining chemistry" of the 1930's has long been surpassed. The American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Chemists need to take an active roll at the precollege levels.
| TOP OF PAGE | VAST-2001 | 
The Chief Reader of the College Board has said that the Molecular Biology and Biotechnology section brings in by far the lowest grades on the SAT exams. The uniformly low grades indicate that students across the spectrum are "not getting it." Various street surveys indicate that there is mass confusion of science with technology. The College Board reports that almost all students confusingly equate electrophoresis with molecular biology. Nevertheless, no plan for rectifying this confusion through a change of pedagogy has been put forward despite the fact that even the slightest improvement in that section's scores would vault the students' grades to new heights more easily than in any other section. So with a view that we can get more "bang for the buck," this group of new pedagogies is being put forward.
The Science of Molecular Biology and Its Technology
From MENDEL to MORGAN to MEGABUCKS!