Nat. Sci. Changes

This week's action by the Student Council urging basic changes in the Natural Sciences program points up two problems that have confronted the University since the beginning of General Education: how to show the scientific specialist a view of science as a whole; and how to give scientific amatuers an understanding of the history, philosophy, and method behind atom bombs and polio vaccines. The specific recommendations of the Council, however, seem calculated more to dramatize the problems than to offer workable solutions.

A major recommendation of the Council is to implement an original aim of General Education by requiring an upper-level Natural Sciences course on the history and philosophy of science for all science and pre-med concentrators, who are now exempt from elementary General Education courses. A quotation from scripture shows the error in the Council's plan: General Education in a Free Society urged that a broad view of science should be ". . . an integral part of the education in his specialty, pervading all his courses. In part it might also take the form of special courses in the science departments, probably seminars, which examine on a mature level . . . important aspects of the philosophy, history, and interrelationships of the sciences."

Although the italics are ours, the distinction should be clear: The Council's course, outside the concentrator's field, would subtract from the scientist's already limited number of "free" courses, while the original plan would have placed the course within his field, thereby counting for concentration. Even many science concentrators feel that courses in humanities and social sciences are more in keeping with the purposes of General Education than additional courses in science.

Since it is doubtful that science departments will include courses in philosophy without expanding the number of required courses, another solution is necessary. One plan, of course, is to offer, but not require, a stimulating General Education course open to large numbers of students and dealing with broader scientific questions. An even more suitable suggestion is one frequently put forth by the Houses--group tutorial for scientists. Tutorial, now offered only in Biochemistry, would not only give Senior Tutors a closer check on science concentrators, but would also provide the mature discussions urged in the original General Education report.

The Council's other major recommendation, already condemned by most Natural Science lecturers, is clearly impractical. It would increase weekly section meetings of the elementary Natural Science courses to two--one for technical information, taught by a scientist, and one for discussion led by a non-scientist. How a non-scientist can lead a discussion on science, how administrative complications can be surmounted, how discussion can be split from technical understanding--these basic questions the Council's report leaves untouched.

One solution, omitted from the Council's suggestions but contained in the General Education report, is to divide section groups "according to the interests, preparation, and aptitude of the student." "Honors" sections in some Natural Science courses have already proven successful, and more should be set up. In addition, Natural Science courses could be improved if each lecturer were to include in his lectures and in the reading as much historical and philosiphical material as possible.

Nothing so mechanical as the Council's plan for two section meetings will solve the complicated problem of giving non-scientists enough, but not too much, technical knowledge for understanding science--its history, philosophy, literature, and social context. Well-read section men, stimulating lecturers, and non-technical reading selections can do even more toward making elementary Natural Science courses an inspiring part of General Education.