CULTURE AND RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE 335
mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology as a block, taught by a team of dedicated professors.
Modules in which ideas from one discipline are used to solve problems in another are developed and
used as case studies for motivating the connections between the topics. Other coordinated science
programs intersperse traditional courses in the disciplines with co-taught interdisciplinary courses
(Examples: Applications of Physical Ideas in Biological Systems; Dimensional Analysis in the Sciences;
Mathematical Biology).
•A broad and unrestricted science program can allow students to count basic courses in any
department toward their degree or to design and propose their personal degree program. Such a system
gives graduates an edge in the ability to transcend boundaries between disciplines. A system of co-
advising to help students balance needs with interests would be vital to ensure that such open programs
function well.
- Courses in quantitative science with explicit ties to biology may be more motivating to biology
students. Some anecdotal evidence indicates that biology students can do better in math and physics
when the examples are drawn from biology; at the University of Washington, the average biology
student’s grade in calculus rose from C to B+ when “calculus for biologists” was introduced.^6 (Note that
such an approach requires that the instructor have the knowledge to use plausible biological examples—
a point suggesting that simply handing off modules of instruction will not be successful.) - Summer programs for undergraduates offer undergraduates an opportunity to get involved in
actual research projects while being exposed to workshops and tutorials in a range of issues at the
BioComp interface. Many such programs are funded by a National Science Foundation or National
Institutes of Health program.^7
When none of these options are available, a student can still create a program informally (either on
his or her initiative or with the advice and support of a sympathetic faculty member). Such a program
would necessarily include courses sufficient to impart a thorough quantitative background (mathemat-
ics, physics, computer science) as well as a solid understanding of biology. As a rule, quantitative
training should come first, because it is often difficult to develop expertise in quantitative approaches
later in the undergraduate years. Exposure to intriguing ideas in biology (e.g., in popular lecture series)
would also help to encourage interest in these directions.
Finally, an important issue at some universities is the fact that computer science departments and
biology departments are located in different schools (school of engineering versus school of arts and
sciences). As a result, biology majors may well face impediments to enrolling in courses intended for
computer science majors, and vice versa. Such a structural impediment underlines both the need and
the challenges for establishing a biological computing curriculum.
10.2.2.3 The BIO2010 Report
In July 2003, the National Research Council (NRC) released Bio 2010: Undergraduate Education to
Prepare Biomedical Research Scientists (National Academies Press, Washington, DC). This report con-
cluded that undergraduate biology education had not kept pace with computationally driven changes
in life sciences research, among other changes, and recommended that mathematics, physics, chemistry,
computer science, and engineering be incorporated into the biology curriculum to the point that inter-
disciplinary thinking and work become second nature for biology students. In particular, the report
noted “the importance of building a strong foundation in mathematics, physical and information sci-
ences to prepare students for research that is increasingly interdisciplinary in character.”
The report elaborated on this point in three other recommendations—that undergraduate life sci-
(^6) Mary Lidstrom, University of Washington, personal communication, August 1, 2003.
(^7) See http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02109/nsf02109.htm.