During a recent Academia Sinica members' meeting, Professor Chen Ding-Shinn (陳定信) -- dean of the College of Medicine at National Taiwan University -- suggested that biology should be made a compulsory subject for all undergraduates. His suggestion was supported by most other members. The suggestion raises the question: How can it be realized? What courses should be made compulsory for undergraduates is one of the important issues facing science education today.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the first university to make biology a compulsory course. Starting in 1991, MIT made general biology a requirement for all freshmen. It did so in the belief that no matter what your major is, you must have some understanding of modern biology in order to deal with the social challenges of the future.
MIT's policy was introduced for several reasons. First, from the perspective of overall scientific knowledge, the rapid development of biology over the past 40 years has made it necessary for each and every "scientifically literate person" to understand the essentials of modern biology. Next, the biologist's style of exploring an issue is somewhat different from that of the chemist or the physicist. By making biology a requirement, therefore, MIT can give its science students the opportunity to experience different approaches to solving problems. Last, from a practical perspective, developments in biology have not only changed the face of medicine and agriculture, but have also had a significant effect on various industries. Biology's increasingly important role in modern society is beyond doubt.
Without question, MIT's move was a pioneering one in the history of science education. Not only did the institution have to convince the biology department to take an additional, heavy teaching load (almost 1,000 students take the course every year), but it also consider how the increased emphasis on biology will affect the time spent learning other sciences. The accent on biology will directly affect technology development in two ways:
-- Scientists and engineers will enter their professions with a grounding in modern biology. This will have a subtle impact on the development of studies in various fields in the future.
-- More people who are well-trained in engineering, physics or mathematics may come to devote themselves to the exploration of biological sciences in the future, enriching the field further.
Indeed, the study of life sciences has undergone a profound revolution over the past 20 years. With the maturation of technology in genetic engineering, we are now able to decode any hereditary information we desire. Recently, some human genome mapping projects have completed the mapping of all human genes. This will enable us to learn about every part of the human body.
Genetic engineering has appeared like a sudden clap of thunder. The issues it raises are multi-dimensional and did not exist before. How should the law, for example, define new species produced by genetic engineering? How should social economists evaluate the impact of the huge increases in productivity brought about by genetic engineering? What is the basis of human values when life is simplified as a combination of certain codes? How should we understand the revolution in modern biology, gradually bringing these new ideas into the cultural systems of our society? Isn't this exactly the kind of education that every college student should receive?
In Taiwan's higher education institutions, each department clings jealously to the number of credit points it is entitled to award. An overall educational ideal rarely informs the processes by which the major courses are conceived, organized and taught. As a result, curriculums include too many -- often fragmentary -- vocational courses. As far as general education courses are concerned, most have always been promoted, as a matter of policy, as being of secondary importance, in order both to popularize them and to ensure that they cater for the general student's ability. As a result, they only provide a smattering of knowledge in certain subjects. Such courses are useless, because neither teachers nor students are serious about them.
By contrast, MIT has not only made general biology a requirement for all freshmen, but has also appointed two biology gurus to conduct the one-semester, two-credit course. Together, they have almost 30 teaching assistants responsible for providing notes, explaining exercises, giving tests, correcting student papers and so on. In other words, MIT's compulsory biology class is not some useless, Taiwanese-style time-filler for students of other majors.
Is anyone seriously planning our curriculums? What are the concepts behind them? Who will be teaching these courses? What will they teach? What can students learn? How will the teachers be evaluated, and what should we do about incompetent teachers? These questions have been posed about our elementary and high school systems. The same concerns also exist in our higher education systems.
The premise for solving these problems is that we must first admit the existence of these flaws. Then, we can seek solutions through constant attention and discussion. Perhaps we can begin by making biology a general education course in Taiwan's colleges.
Chou Cheng-kung is a professor of life sciences at National Yang-Ming University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US