physics in the education of 21st century biologists · 2017. 11. 4. · physics in the education of...

Physics in the education of 21st century biologists

Reflection and proposal for Spanish Bachelor’s degrees in Biology

Armando del Romero1, Miguel Sancho2, Germán Ros1, Leticia Herrera3

Javier Suárez4, Gala Ramón5, Lucía Selfa6 y Nuria Berzal7 1Universidad de Alcalá, Spain; 2Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain; 3PhD student at the Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares, Spain; 4PhD student at the Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas, Spain; 5PhD student at Hertfordshire University, UK; 6Master student at the Center of Regenerative Therapies, Dresden, Germany; 7Master student (in Training of teachers of Biology and Geology) at the Universidad de Alcalá, Spain.

Alba Refoyo, Javier Correa, Sergio González, Adrián Molina y Susana Delgado

Undergraduate students at the Universidad de Alcalá, Spain.

English translation of a article simultaneously published in Revista Española de Física (http://revistadefisica.es/index.php/ref), Vol. nº 31-1/2017 and Revista de la Sociedad Española de Bioquímica y Biol. Molecular (http://www.sebbm.es/revista/), nº 191/2017.

There is a broad consensus in the scientific community about the necessity of the enormous and urgent challenges that affect the biosciences being addressed in a multidisciplinary manner and that the current revolution in Biology is product of a qualitative change in the way of thinking about the mysteries of life, change in which Physics is playing a key role. Then, why do Spanish universities still offer the future graduates in Biosciences a compartmentalized education, in which Physics is viewed as a simple tool? What is the situation in other European and North American universities? The roots of this issue are deep and the solution will take time. But meanwhile, how should a module in Physics be shaped and delivered to undergraduates in Biosciences in order to help train biologists with the skills to work in a multidisciplinary team? What could physicists and biologists from any university do by collaboration? What type of support and academic resources are needed?

Drawing from the review of the current discussion about this topic in USA and Europe, and taking into account the experience developed in the University of Alcalá (UAH) for the last few years with the Bachelor in Health Biology, here we answer those questions and suggest a possible organization for an Introductory Physics module for the Bachelors in Biosciences of Spanish Universities. Our answers are basically a proposal for dialogue between physicists, biologists and educators, as well as a reflection about how to help disassembling the traditional barrier, towards Physics, for future graduates in Biosciences, which will enrich the BSc Biosciences (and perhaps also BSc Physics).

http://revistadefisica.es/index.php/ref

http://www.sebbm.es/revista/

Physics in the education of 21st century biologists. Revista RSEF (nº 31-1/2017) and Revista SEBBM (nº 191/2017). 2

1. The current discussion in USA and Europe about the education that the future biologists need. The role of Physics.

“I thank physicists for their many contributions to biology and medicine - for providing the tools that allow us to see and probe living things, and for training great minds that have uncovered some of the most fundamental principles of biology. I now encourage physicists to work collaboratively with biologists as we strive to achieve Delbruck's ‘radical physical explanation’ for biological systems”. Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, ended with this phrase his speech – 22nd March of 1999 – in the congress commemorating the first centenary of the American Physical Society, the biggest in its history. In his intervention, he pointed that to demolish the borders between disciplines, a renovation was needed in the university degrees towards a more interdisciplinary nature [1].

Shortly after, it was begun in USA a great discussion about the qualifications that graduates in Life Sciences should have “for the Nation (the world) to be able to face appropriately the enormous and urgent challenges in the field nowadays (health, food, climate change…)”, promoted and leaded by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, The National Science Foundation and The American Association for the Advancement of Science [2-4]. This discussion prompted a renovation of the majors in Life Sciences, which in the field of Biology is happening more intensively thanks to the project Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education [4], which allowed for the consensus of a roadmap to evaluate, in concept and format, the teaching delivered in the bachelors in Biology. The roadmap suggests the enhancement of the basic sciences on the academic programs, identifies five core concepts and defines a set of recommendations with regards to the key competences that the graduate should reach and that influence the way of teaching and working in the classroom. Among them, the concepts concerning Physics are: (i) Structure and functions (the implementation of physical laws and models may help understanding the relationship, at different levels, from molecular to organism and ecosystem levels). (ii) Storage, interchange and flux of information (modeling of regulation, homeostasis and signal transduction mechanisms requires the understanding of the physical concept of information and the use of physico-mathematical tools). (iii) Transformation of energy and matter (the growing and working dynamics of living beings, at all levels, as well as the phenomenon of origin and evolution of life itself are governed by the laws of Thermodynamics).

Regarding the key competences, Physics is essential for some of them and very useful for the rest. Here we remark the skills for: (i) the use of quantitative reasoning, (ii) the use of modeling and simulation, (iii) the participation on the interdisciplinary process of science, (iv) the communication and collaboration with other disciplines. All these skills require a rapprochement with the language and methodology of other basic sciences and particularly of Physics.


This is the context in which the renovation of the teaching of Physics (Introductory Physics Life Science/IPLS) is happening in their majors in Life Sciences. Numerous initiatives on how to “reinvent” the Physics teaching for these bachelor degrees and detailed proposals of IPLS modules converged in both national congresses, in 2014, about the education in the Physics-Biology borders [5] and about the renovation of the IPLS modules [6]. The final report of the later compiles most of the publications up to 2015.

In the European Higher Education Area we have not managed to find any general discussion with directions about the role that European biologists assign to the basic sciences in the undergraduates training. It seems that every university does whatever it wants or can. Most of the bachelors in Biology comprise three years (180 ECTS), and only a small group -although significant in within the 50 best rated universities (QS ranking 2016 in Biosciences)- assigns to the basic sciences (maths, physics, chemistry) a scope of at least 20%. In Europe, the integration between Biology and other scientific disciplines seems to be restrained to postgraduate level, through Masters or PhD programs with a strong research component.

In Spain, the weight assigned to basic sciences is even lower, despite that the bachelors in Biology comprise 240 ECTS. Only one university (Autónoma de Madrid) assigns to these sciences more that 10% of the total course credits; and they are very few that confer to Physics more than six credits (2.5%).

We consider, in line with the spirit that encouraged the reforms in USA, that Physics and Mathematics should have more than a mere instrumental role in today’s Biology, both sciences should contribute to shaping the reasoning and conceptual framework of the student, from the very starting levels.

To which extent could the recommendations for IPLS courses from the American scientific community be implemented in the Introductory Physics course of a given degree in a Spanish university that would like to adapt them? Could the teacher(s) do it with the only support from the Department? Answering these questions and encouraging that discussion in the Spanish university constitute the aims of a project -Introductory Physics Life Sciences for BSc Biology in Spain- whose main conclusions are summarized in this article.

2. The adequate Physics for a Spanish bachelor in Biology: main objective and pedagogical strategy.

North American academics stress that there is not at model for an IPLS suitable for all contexts, that the most adequate option will depend on the study programme and its circumstances; and they recommend to dialogue with biologists. To convey the subject, they point out two possible pedagogical strategies: “going from Physics to Biology” or “going from Biology to Physics”. The former is the most popular; although some advocate for the later (top-to-down), which begins by describing the biological process to analyze and resorting then to Physics (and Maths) needed to explain it


(see, as an example, the article related to the IPLS courses taught in the University of Minnesota and in the Swarthmore College of Pensilvania [7]).

Therefore, how should an Introductory Physics course for a Spanish bachelors in Biology (hereafter called IPLS-Spain) be adjusted to our particular circumstances? And which are those circumstances? In our opinion, there are two that, due to their influence on the education of students starting the degree, are decisive for the subject’s success or failure: (i) it is widespread the view that Physics has little utility for Biology; (ii) they are a minority among Biosciences students those that studied Physics (and Maths) in A levels, many times due to a rejection of quantitative aspects. Both circumstances create a “mental barrier”, towards Physics, in most of the students that start the degree; a barrier that hinder their learning in Physics. Thus, to remove that barrier appear to us as a first indispensable step, if not the main aim of the subject. Accordingly, we have reached the conclusion that while the first strategy -from Physics to Biology- tends to reinforce the barrier, the second -from Biology to Physics- is effective in helping remove it because it clearly spurs the effort that it means for the student.

3. The “Physics experience” in the bachelors in Health Biology in UAH: a pilot trial.

The experience from the Physics module throughout five academic years (from 2010-11 to 2014-15) in the bachelors in Health Biology of the University of Alcalá has proved to be, unintentionally, a preliminary trial testing the viability in Spain of the basic component of our IPLS-Spain proposal (see epigraph 4). Once defined the central objective of learning (to understand how Physics aids in answering important questions in Biology), a module was designed to combine biological coherence and physical coherence, and to fit within its 6 ECTS. The general criteria were:

Timing (see table): (i) the analysis of biological processes was prioritized over the study of technological applications, and (ii) the experimental part was given considerable weight.

Contents: on the theoretical part, (i) it was done a careful selection of the biological processes in which: an underlying Physics was clear, the needed mathematics was simple, they were interesting for the different areas of Biology, although prioritizing the bachelor's orientation (Health), and they were structured in a coherent discourse of Physics (thermodynamics and life, biomechanics, bioelectricity, bioradiations and applied optics); (ii) to illustrate the importance for Biology of the technological applications, (optical and electron) microscopy was used. The experimental part basically stressed on (i) the concept of error and (ii) the use of models for its estimation on indirect measurements (see epigraph 4 for more details).


Physics 2010-2015 (Bachelor in Health Biology, UAH)

“Macro” distribution of the time (6 ECTS)

General thematic areas

THEORETICAL PART 4.5 credits (75%)

● Physical analysis of biological processes (3.4 credits; 57%)

● Technological applications of Physics (1.1 credits; 18%)

EXPERIMENTAL PART 1.5 credits (25%)

● Measure and error. Use of physico-mathematical models in the error estimation of indirect measures.

The pedagogic strategy evolved every year towards the top-to-down option, staying in an intermediate point. Furthermore, since the beginning the discussion between students was encouraged and recognized, and tutored by the teacher. The continuous evaluation, prolonged until the resit exam session proved to be another fundamental stimulus.

The analysis of the experience -which will be published soon- allows to conclude that most of the students achieved to remove his/her mental barrier towards Physics, despite of only a small percentage (≈20%) had studies Physics in A levels; and that that objective can be achieved (within 4 months) if the student has enough stimulus and the teacher shows a clear interest in Biology. Although it is to be noted also that the high admission minimum grade in this degree on those years (between 11.0 and 11.8) must have influenced the result. Nevertheless, a reduced programme, as Vision and Change recommends “to all subjects”, might be sufficient to achieve the objective in other degrees with “average” students. In this sense, an option may be eliminate the contents regarding the technological applications of Physics (microscopy, in this case), if the principles of these (or other) technologies were taught in those modules in which the student learns how to use and/or use them.

4. “IPLS-Spain” proposal for a Biology Bachelor’s degree in Spain (two modules)

We agree with North American academics in that the priority of an IPLS should be to understand how the knowledge is built within the borderline between Biology and Physics, by integrating both perspectives; this objective, however, does not seem achievable in sufficient depth in the assigned time to the module in Spanish degrees in Biology, also taking into account the “mental barrier” respect to the Physics previously mentioned. What should be done?

One possibility, that would not require important academic and administrative changes from the current situation, would be to make it in two stages (modules); one compulsory and another elective. The first one would be analogous to the one


already being taught in the first year, and its main goal should be that the future biologist opens his/her mind to the perspective that Physics can and should provide.

Once reached the objective of surpassing the barrier that Physics implies for most students, we propose a 6 ECTS elective module, to be delivered in the third or fourth year, offered to students interested in research or other career opportunities that demand working in multidisciplinary groups. In our opinion, the most advisable approach for that purpose would be an interdisciplinary subject delivered by one or more couples of physicist-biologist1. In those universities offering degrees in Biology and Physics, it could be given in both of them, creating an opportunity to form mixed student couples working in the same practical or workshop. This interdepartmental option would be favoured if the dialogue between teachers, physicists and biologists, began by referring to the basic module design. And it seems obvious that its success as an elective course would highly rely on the motivation achieved on the part of the students during the compulsory module.

The scheme of our proposal for IPLS-Spain is the following:

Which criteria should be applied to choose the contents of both modules?

- Experimental part

Before choosing theoretical content, it is necessary to decide the weight of the experimental part, which will depend on its aimed learning outcomes. Should the lab aim for conceptual comprehension, for development of experimental skills, or both objectives? The 2014 IPLS Conference report points out that traditional IPLS lab activities are not appropriate and that an ILPS lab “may provide the practice to design experiments that address a question about the physics of a living system and to quantify physical processes in a biological system”.

For the basic module, that would be taken by students, mostly without previous lab experience, the objectives of Physics in BSc Health Biology (epigraph 3) seem reasonable. Those learning outcomes also coincide with the basics recommended by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) for a Physics introductory lab at the University [9]. However, it would also be desirable to link the experiments to

1 Hoslinson et al. -a team of biologists and physicists- published in 2014 an interesting reflection about the pedagogy adequated to a subject of this kind [8].


processes closely related to Biology (flow of a viscous fluid, diffusion across a membrane…).

The elective module should be designed taking into account the contents of the mandatory one. It is difficult to go into more detail, but it would definitely be necessary the collaboration between physicist(s) and biologist(s) for the practical teaching, as well as it is advisable the use of a Biology laboratory equipment.

- Theoretical contents

The three “core concepts” proposed by Vision and Change that address Physics, point out a first criterion to choose the theoretical contents: (i) Structure and function, Energy and matter transformations, Storage, exchange and flux of information. The recommendations from the 2014 IPLS Conference provide two more guidelines: (ii) the diversity of Biology, and (iii) the selection of those Physics areas that are most needed by biologists. And the experience from Physics in BSc Health Biology suggests a fourth guideline, imperative in our opinion for the basic module and probably also for the complementary one, (iv) the selection of biological processes in which the Physics foundation is especially clear and the physical model to analyze it requires low-level mathematics.

5. Sustainability of an IPLS reform: necessary support and resources.

Let’s assume that, with the participation of some biologists and with a reasonable effort, the ILPS reform has been achieved. Will it be sustainable?

The 2014 IPLS Conference highlights two aspects: (i) to tailor the assessment of the students to the learning objectives and (ii) to work with physicists from other universities in order to exchange experiences and solutions. But, Catherine Crouch and Ken Heller, very active physicists in the ILPS

reform, warn that another important factor is to take into account when designing the course: “even if the reform is successful, for its implementation to be sustainable, it is required that most of teachers are willing to deliver it… which implies that they consider that it can be undertaken without an excessive effort. This will demand several commitments in the course design, as well as adequate supplementary materials for the teacher” [7].

Having adequate resources to teach within the intersection between Physics and Life Sciences has been a recurrent topic in the cited conferences [5-6]: infrastructures, new curricular materials (textbooks, class activities, models of problem exercises and exams, etc.) and equipment for new laboratories. Most of the participants in the 2014 IPLS Conference attended in the search for orientation and assistance; and the ultimate of their conclusions states “to reform an IPLS is not an easy process; it is necessary a community of interested academics”. In fact, beyond the debates, the creation of that community was the main purpose of this Conference.


How can we know the viability in Spain of an space that promotes the dialogue between physicists, biologists and educators involved or interested in the role of Physics in the training of future biologists; and also between teachers and students?, where could it be placed?, where could we begin?

6. Summarizing: a proposal for dialogue and an invitation to action

We are not naïve when bringing up our proposal. We know that a compartmentalized university is not ideal to train professionals with an interdisciplinary mind. We know that, in Spain, those physicists working in biological areas are relatively few; that, to teach first-year Physics, “any teacher can do”; and that to undertake the Vision and Change’s recommendations would involve an additional effort in his/her “teaching workload”. We are also aware that, today, they are a minority the biologists who regularly use Physics and Mathematics. Although we are certain that there are, both physicists and biologists that do use them.

And above everything, we think that the wind blows in the direction pointed by Professor Varmus. Our society needs, quite urgently, biologists with a more “quantitative” training, capable of working with fluency in multidisciplinary teams, like those that are currently giving everyone new hopes. And biologists properly trained will have greater opportunities, both in research and in any other field where there is a search for solutions to complex challenges of today’s world. We also need to improve the background of future high-school teachers, when the mental barrier “towards the quantitative” starts to appear in students attracted by Life Sciences. We are aware of its difficulty, but also of its necessity and because of that the University should urgently assume the change of paradigm in the manner that biologists are trained.

IPLS-Spain is a proposal that intends to add, enrich the Bachelor’s Degree in Biology and also the one in Physics. To open a dialog (with biologists, with other physicists, with educators…) and to add are the two guides for the pathway that we suggest for those who might be interested. Besides, this project’s team intends to open a pilot web page. Even though our resources are limited, the receptivity to this article will give a clue about the interest that the complex, and appealing, relationships between Physics and Biology draws in Spain, and will allow the assessment of the pertinence of our proposals.

The borderline between Physics and Biology is very broad and there are multiple possible levels of action to achieve the demolition of that historical barrier. Our project is only a call to teachers and students interested in that frontier to explore the possibility of opening a new space for dialogue and mutual support. And also a call to institutional bodies of Universities and Scientific Societies (professional colleges of physicists and biologists, the Spanish Royal Society of Physics, Spanish Associations of Biology…) to lead the way that help solve this important challenge in Biology (and Physics) of the 21st century.


Acknowledgments

The proposals made here have been elaborated by a team united for that purpose and integrated by three senior physicists and ten junior biologists (five postgraduate and five undergraduate students). Our previous conclusions were discussed with three biologists and three physicists involved in the training of future biologists, who helped us adjust them: Jesús Pérez Gil (biochemist and biophysicist UCM), Leonardo Cassano Maza (plant physiologist UAH), Begoña Fernández Calvin (geneticist UAM) and the physicists Fernando Cussó Pérez (UAM), Miguel A. Hidalgo Moreno (UAH) y M. Cruz de Andrés García (UCM). We thank them for their contributions and support to our Project. However, what proposed here is under our own responsibility.

REFERENCES

[1] Varmus, H. (1999). The impact of physics on biology and medicine. APS Centennial Meeting, Atlanta. Physics World, 12, 9, 27-31.

[2] National Research Council, Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003), http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10497

[3] National Research Council, A New Biology for the 21st Century (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12764/a-new-biology-for-the-21st-century

[4] Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, edited by Carol A. Brewer and Diane Smith (AAAS, Washington DC, 2011), http://visionandchange.org/finalreport/

[5] Gordon Research Conference on Physics Research and Education, The Complex Intersection of Biology and Physics (South Hadley, MA, 2014), https://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=12967

[6] Conference on Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences Report, AAPT (College Park, MD, 2015), http://www.compadre.org/IPLS/documents/IPLS-Final-Report.pdf

[7] Crouch, C. H., and Heller, K. (2014). Introductory physics in biological context: An approach to improve introductory physics for life science students. Am. J. Phys. 82, 378-386.

[8] Hoskinson, A. M., et al. (2014). Bridging Physics and Biology Teaching through Modeling. Am. J. Phys., 82, 5, 434-441.

[9] The AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum, 2014, http://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_E Bendorsed_nov10.pdf

http://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument

physics in the education of 21st century biologists · 2017. 11. 4. · physics in the education of...

Documents