Teaching to bridge the gap between Physics and Biology

Posted on September 3, 2010 by Athene Donald

Yesterday’s sessions at the Physics Meets Biology  meeting ended with discussion of what can be done to help teaching in biological physics.  The 2008 Wakeham Review highlighted that ‘physics students in many departments get regrettably little exposure,if any, to modern soft matter physics and biophysics’.  On the back of this the IOP, led by Philip Diamond, has committed funds and energy towards trying to draw up some freely accessible material on the web on which departments can draw.  Previously, a group of us have had much discussion of the best way forward, and currently we are starting to write some brief modules which we hope will help to address the perceived need..  IOPP are also involved to make sure that the actual presentation of the material is as good and versatile as possible.  As well as making some contribution to this writing, I am also overall Project Director, and I look forward to seeing how it all comes together.



So to begin last night’s session, I gave a brief description of this project.  The key speaker was, however, Philip Nelson of the University of Pennsylvania, whose own book “Biological Physics: Energy, Information, Life” is a wonderful resource for anyone trying to develop material in the field.  He has thought very deeply about how to teach this topic both to physicists and, as he highlighted in the talk he gave at the meeting, to non-physics majors.  His specific approach may work less well in the UK setting, but it was eye-opening to see how he introduced a wide range of huge and exciting topics such as gene drift and vision to demonstrate the underlying physics and the physical mindset and toolset.


The problem with trying to tackle the perceived absence both of courses in many departments, and course material even for those departments where there is a will to include biological physics explicitly in the syllabus, is that each and every place will have a different set of existing courses and a different niche where they want to shoehorn the topic in. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and this makes it incredibly hard to be sure the Teaching Biological Physics Project will be effective. But I hope the web-based sourcing of material will enable lecturers to mix and  match what works for them (as long as the IOP manage to ‘market’ the material well enough to be sure people know it is out there). And I am even more keen that the existence of the material will enable people to appreciate how some biological illustrations can be drafted in to many mainstream courses.  I managed to get some stuff into the new 1st year Waves course I taught earlier this year, including Joe Howard’s wonderful movie of bull sperm moving, which is a much more interesting example of wave motion than merely the standard waves on strings. Some thought by lecturers with the motivation to introduce biological examples into core courses – and some help from our web based material – could go some way to rectifying the current gap that the Wakeham Review highlighted.


The discussion afterwards was illuminating. Where is the wow factor in teaching biology to physics? was one provocative question. Is the wow factor what gets all students interested in physics, so does this matter was one response, but of course this merely says not only is there not a one-size-fits-all solution for courses, it is equally true at the individual student level. Another concern expressed was that by teaching a little of everything do we end up with experts in none, who are not then equipped to deal with any topic in any depth.  This is of course the same point I made here, and is a hard nut to crack.  I suppose, within the context of this discussion, I feel the issue is more to expose physicists to the broader picture of where physics matters. For readers of this blog it is probably not a heretical idea to say there is more to physics than outer space and the LHC, as I fear much press coverage can tend to imply, and this is what I believe we need to address.


Finally, I was delighted to discover yesterday 2 undergraduate students here – as it happens from my own university, but that is possibly incidental – who had heard through the IOP about this meeting and had come to it off their own bat. Yes, we do teach biological physics in Cambridge and maybe that was relevant, but talking to them over dinner it was clear that both of them had always known they were interested in working at this interface and – because of the Natural Sciences Tripos system in my university which I believe is incredibly effective for students who have broad interests  – between them they had been able to do full year 1st year courses on Physiology of Organisms, Biology of Cells and, Evolution and Behaviour.  But not only was I struck by the initiative and motivation these two student had shown, it contrasted very markedly with the idea of undergraduate students as ‘potted plants‘ I had seen in a recent post on an American science professor’s blog.   The implication was professors, possibly those seeking tenure, used undergraduates to swell numbers whether or not they were going to get anything out of talks.  These students weren’t plants, they were an inspirational reminder of why we love what we do.

							

	
			

									
						Posted in Biological Physics, Interdisciplinary Science, Teaching					
					|
				
								
					Tagged 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on Teaching to bridge the gap between Physics and Biology

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
The Players in Physics Meets Biology


			

				Posted on September 1, 2010 by Athene Donald			


					

				
Today has been an interesting day at the Physics Meets Biology meeting, I mentioned a couple of days ago.  The talks were diverse as one would expect from the community ranging from insect adhesion (Matthew Anyon from Hull), through the theory of helical swimmers (Frank Julicher) to perhaps the more obviously ‘physicky’ elegant single molecule bionanotechnology from Hermann Gaub. We also had a couple of presentations from the EPSRC and BBSRC.  We are delighted they engage with us, but I think collectively we continue to feel that the gaps between them remain. Maybe it is a chicken and egg situation: potential PI’s look at the websites and feel whatever is they want to do doesn’t fit squarely anywhere so get discouraged from applying; the research councils then say that there aren’t grants coming in to them in this area.  Hermann Gaub was right on the ball, though, when he reminded us that when he was part of the IOP/EPSRC 2005 review team for Physics the concern about interdisciplinary work being batted between the research councils was a concern made very clear to them.  The remit query introduced by the EPSRC may go some way to mitigate the problem, but it certainly doesn’t solve it.



















The other encouraging aspect of this meeting is the attendance. 120 registrants many from UK universities and research institutes, but also a pleasing number of contributed presentations from as far away as India. The numbers of students present is also very positive. The topic is thriving in our universities, even if still there are a significant number of research-intensive universities whose physics departments haven’t yet entered the field.  Data from the recent IOP Survey of Academic Appointments in Physics shows just how paltry staff numbers are compared with the (STFC funded) sub-disciplines of astronomy and high energy physics: in 2008 a mere 2.7% were declared to be working in biophysics and biological physics, compared with 15% in high energy physics and a whopping 23.3% in astronomy and astrophyics. The numbers in biological physics have increased marginally (from 1.9% in 2004), but it is still a tiny proportion of active staff.



							

	
			

									
						Posted in Biological Physics					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on The Players in Physics Meets Biology

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
The Drawbacks of the Deficit Model


			

				Posted on August 31, 2010 by Athene Donald			


					

				
Following on from my recent post, and my remarks about not being a shrinking violet, let me take up the theme of the ‘deficit model’ discussed in a recent post by my erstwhile colleague and WiSETI project officer Esther Haines on her own blog.  The deficit model and the interventions used to overcome the resulting problems were described by Carol Muller as follows:


“… interventions have been characterized as efforts that focus on a “deficit” model, in which it is assumed that these individuals lack something—ability, experience, interest, inspiration, motivation—that they need in order to succeed. In this model, attention is paid to mitigating that deficit, typically by providing programs—summer camps, internships, remedial courses, special study groups, mentoring programs, social opportunities, seminars, evening programs, etc.”


This has the danger of making women feel they are the problem, rather than the problem lying in the culture that expects everyone to be the same i.e. in this case, male.  By being told I am ‘not a shrinking violet’ I hear the statement both that I ought or am expected to be one, and that I stand out, for the wrong reasons, by not being one.  To my mind that is a trivial example of the deficit model: if I were male I would be ‘forceful’ and that would be OK.


Positive actions to overcome the perceived deficit can indeed be constructive: workshops to build up confidence may be helpful and WiSETI runs some locally, as do many groups.  (Although positive action itself can have a negative side to it, and can be perceived as getting dangerously close to positive discrimination.  As last week’s THE pointed out, there is something of a backlash against any such actions ongoing from white males).  But the organization itself needs to change structurally, from the top, so that differences between the genders – or race, or whatever it might be – do not per se form a criterion on which judgments are made. This is what mainstreaming is all about, and again locally we are pursuing this path.


Let me give a small, but significant example. In the university’s promotion forms we have traditionally had a place for people to give details of what were known as special circumstances. Typically, this was to permit people to say they had taken time out for childbirth/maternity leave, though it also made it possible for other circumstances such as long term sickness to be declared. The University is changing the wording this year to additional circumstances. So, you no longer need to feel you are somehow different and need special treatment simply because you’ve had a baby, or a career break, and it will probably also help men to feel more comfortable declaring their own caring responsibilities. These are events that happen on top of one’s work, but they don’t need to imply you will be singled out for careful scrutiny because you are ‘special’.  The new wording should make such declarations feel less threatening.  We will see.


I have been horrified to hear, from women within my university, that in the past they have been explicitly advised by line managers including heads of department that they should simply not fill in the box at all, not admit to having had a baby/time out. I find this astonishing and unhelpful as a straightforward explanation of why there may be a hiatus in publishing seems to me to be much more constructive than a visible but unexplained hiatus which will be interpreted as someone having an ‘off’ period in their research.  As ever, actions that help everyone are likely to help women proportionately more, but by widening what is admissible I hope that parenting more generally will be seen as normal and work-life balance considerations will no longer be off the radar. But then, maybe I’m an optimist.

							

	
			

									
						Posted in Equality, Women in Science, Women's Issues					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , , 				
				|
				
				1 Comment

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
Physics Meets Biology


			

				Posted on August 30, 2010 by Athene Donald			


					

				
I am off to the Institute of Physics’ Physics Meets Biology meeting in Oxford later this week, organised by the Biological Physics Group, whose committee I have chaired for the last 3 years. We held our first meeting (with the same name and also in Oxford) 2 years ago, and I enjoyed it immensely. I would like to think it was a sparkling success; it certainly succeeded in bringing physicists and biologists together, and showcasing the many different strands that make up the field. I am hoping this years’ conference will be just as exciting and stimulating and, looking at the cast of international speakers we have, kicking off with Frank Jülicher, I am very optimistic. These meetings are wonderful opportunities to hear about work away from one’s immediate area and to meet people who share the same basic philosophy but work on different systems or use different tools. I hope we have a good turnout, despite the financial gloom!


The BPG was formed about 3 1/2 years ago, and has managed to get off to an excellent start in bringing the UK community together. Nevertheless, it is hard to reach all the people one wants – who may not be in Physics departments or members of the IOP, and so may not be aware of what we are up to. Aside from organising meetings  (which have ranged from this, our showcase event every 2 years, to  joint meetings with other groups in the IOP, to joint meetings with other organisations, and to simple 1 day events simply for our own members) we have other ongoing activities. One, very much driven by the IOP, is to try to prepare some teaching material to help those departments who don’t have staff who are confident to teach biological physics in any form. The lack of staff in many departments was an issue highlighted by the International Review of  Physics in 2005, and was one of the drivers for our group being set up. Another is to keep dialogue going with the research councils, notably the EPSRC and BBSRC, to make sure our discipline doesn’t fall through the cracks between the research councils, something our members are extremely concerned about. In the spring we were delighted when the EPSRC broadened the Physics remit explicitly to include Biological Physics.


Interdisciplinary meetings are a great pleasure and they each have their own particular slant.  There are various groupings in the UK which ostensibly cover some of this field, loosely termed biophysics (which I would distinguish from Medical Physics). The British Biophysical Society – who celebrated 50 years of existence earlier this summer with a major conference here in Cambridge – have their emphasis in a rather different place from BPG, and their meeting stressed biochemistry and structural biology much more than I would expect to see in Oxford. Each community needs its own focus, but it is important we maintain dialogue between the organisations, as indeed we try to do. Nevertheless I am sure that BPG has its own unique space and community, and I look forward to its continued growth and success. I have thoroughly enjoyed chairing the BPG committee for the last 3 years, and have found it a very rewarding task, but will now be passing the baton on after the elections at our AGM.

							

	
			

									
						Posted in Biological Physics					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , , 				
				|
				
				Comments Off on Physics Meets Biology

							

		


		
	

	
			

			
What does Delusions of Gender tell us?


			

				Posted on August 28, 2010 by Athene Donald			


					

				
Delusions of Gender is a book that is clearly going to stir up a lot of interest from both sides of the nature-nurture debate.  Are girls’ brains hardwired differently from boys at birth, due to the testosterone surge at 8 weeks in the womb, or are the perceived differences all due to the way male and female children are treated as they grow up?  A quick look at reviews on the web shows the predictable spread of reactions from the ultraconservative to the more measured.  Starting at the ultraconservative end of the spectrum we find Australian Oz dismissing the author Cordelia Fine as ‘It turns out that she is a feminist with standard, orthodox ideas about autonomy’ and by implication can’t be taken seriously . The article goes on to say ‘Feminists sometimes claim that they are all for choice for women. But Cordelia Fine is yet another feminist who ends up pushing one option alone. Because she sees autonomy as the great prize, and careers as the way to get autonomy, she treats the motherhood option as an inferior, low-status pursuit associated negatively with oppression and inequality.’


The more measured tones of the Guardian says  ‘In short, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility.’  But what got me stirred up to write this post was the rather desperate and miserable young female scientist blogger who says ‘In it, the author throws down a gauntlet, taking particular aim at studies claiming that gender differences in ability are primarily biological.   I’m glad to see books like this, in the sense that I think there are far too many people (okay, mostly men) out there who need convincing. However, I’m not sure that they’ll be convinced by anything like this….But for those who don’t have an open mind about the question, I’m not convinced that battling it out is going to help anyone.   I’m so tired of fighting all the time….’


There are so many issues tied up in the nature-nurture debate, so many issues about ‘good’ parenting, that it looks as if people will simply take what they want from this book and use it to support their own position.  Reading yet another review which focused on whether there are or are not sex differences in  the corpus callosum structure  reminded me of the furious debate between Owen and Huxley on just how substantial difference were – or were not – between human and gorilla brains (see Nicolaas Rupke’s extensive discussion in ‘Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin’) – and ultimately it was a matter of definition more than fact.  It would appear that if human brains (or parts thereof) are so hard to size in a statistically meaningful way to tell just how different the male and female brains actually are, this will prove fertile ground for argument for a long time to come. And, as has frequently been said in many contexts, does size really matter anyhow?


But how do we move forward to anywhere fruitful, when many of the issues that youngfemalescientist feels she is fighting against are nothing to do with the size or wiring of the brains per se. It is what people do with those brains in recognizing what underlies their take on things that matters. Too often women find themselves at the end of unconsciously demeaning remarks (youngfemalescientist in that particular blog was complaining about the way people assumed, as a woman, she might be content to be a professor’s right hand person, running their lab but without independence, and she couldn’t imagine that position being proposed for a male in her position).  And it is the fact that the speaker was unconscious of the offence being caused which makes this such a hard problem to solve.


It happens all too frequently.  Most women, in science and beyond, will have phrases that stick in their mind as being offensive, while knowing simultaneously that offence was not really intended, as in that example above. My own particular hate is ‘you’re not a shrinking violet’. I find it offensive because it implies that actually, as a woman, I was expected to be exactly that – a shrinking violet.  Is there a male equivalent?  I asked a good colleague, a male, and he said the equivalent would be wimp, but it is hard to see a man being told after a committee meeting ‘well you weren’t a wimp’.  Somehow I imagine the conversation would be more likely to go along the lines of ‘you were very forceful’ or ‘that was a strong argument’. In other words the positive is stressed, rather than the idea that you weren’t something that, actually, you didn’t want to be anyhow. Who wants to be a violet, shrinking or otherwise?  But for the time being women such as youngfemalescientist may have to continue fighting to be allowed not to be one.

							

	
			

									
						Posted in Women in Science, Women's Issues					
					|
				
								
					Tagged , 				
				|
				
				1 Comment