- Email: [email protected]
Departmental leadership with respect to teaching and research
Biochemical Education ELSEVIER
Biochemical Education 26 (1998) 265-266
Editorial
Departmental leadership with respect to teaching and research At the time of the first FEBS Congress in Varna, Bulgaria, in 1971, a discussion on biochemical education was held and the establishment was surprised at the interest aroused. Only then was the International Union happy to initiate the formation of a Committcc to promote educational matters [1]. In recent years there has bccn a pronounced change in attitude with respect to all matters of education so that we now witness our prime ministers and presidcnts promoting education at the top of their political agenda. The Biochemical Society in London has an Education Group and also a Committee responsible for Professional and Educational matters, and the ASBMB has recently h)rmcd a Task Force on educational matters and which is highly activc. Therc wcrc good sessions at the ASBMB meeting in San Francisco in 1997 and in Washington DC in 1998, and a number of sessions arc planned for the meeting, also in San Francisco, in May 1999. While we welcome the new promincncc given to education some of us must wonder where all the wonderful new teachers are to be found not only in our schools but also in our universities. With respect to universities it is a common occurrence to say goodbye to a collcaguc who has been prominent in their efforts to sclect talented students and innovate stimulating tutorials and practical courses. Such people tend to be replaced by those who are more likely to attract research grants which will enhance the research record of the department and its university. Not surprisingly such new recruits will not waste their time devising new methods of teaching for that is no way to gain promotion. So how are the dcpartmcntal objectives to be realigned so that teaching once again is clcvatcd to at least an equal status with research for I strongly believe that the two should go hand in hand. l recall past discussions when l listened to those who advocated the appointment of departmcntal chairmen who had not gained their spurs through research but through innovation in teaching. I do not go along with this view for I have noticed that unless somconc has participated in fruitful research tit a comparatively early stage in their career they will have little incentive to pursue it later. These thoughts were reinforced by my
reading an account of an intcrview with the particle physicist Carlo Rubbia, at one time director of C E R N [2]. Lewis Wolpert asked him whether at C E R N he wets rather like an emperor of a small city state. He replied "I don't think so. In sciencc there is absolutely no authority coming from rank, from position. You don't have to be a boss, you have to be a missionary. You will never get the young scientist to do something unless you convince him that he should take care of that. There is no authority in science except the one coming from convincing power." i very much agrce with thc views of Rubbia and would only add that to be a succcssful missionary either in thc sphere of religion or science you must gain the respect of your students through the possession of a substantial track rccord. My conclusion from the above thoughts is that for the status of teaching in our universities to be enhanced we should be looking for those who are going to be successful missionaries in terms of research but who also have a genuine interest in teaching - - in taking responsibility for the training of the next generation of biochemists - - and will support thosc members of staff who arc talented teachers. Such angels will be hard to lind, but the future of our universitics depends on the success of the search. Peter Campbell References [ I] In the second issue of the newly ti~rmed B i o c h e m i c a l Edt~catioJ~ in 1973 (Vol I. No 2, p 18),it was reported that it was agreed when the IUB Committee on Educalion was set up thai it should have leprcsentation of regional organisations. At thai lime the Committee consisted of P. N. Campbell and A. L. 1,ellninger (fl~r IUB), S. Rapoport and G. Semenza (for FKBS), I. W. Sizer and A. O. M. Stoppani (fl)r PAABS), and I,. K. Ramchandran and Y. Miura lot FAOB. 121 Pa,~.sifmale M i m / s - - The h m e r Worhl ~)/'Scie~ztist~', by Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richards, Oxfi)rd University Press, Oxford, 1997, pp 240. £19.99 [ISBN 019854904]. This book consists of short interviews first broadcast on the BBC. The choscn subjects cover many fields and those inteix, iewed come lrom many countries. Biochemists will be particularly interested in the views of Peler Mitchell ('arl Djerassi, l,eroy Hood, David Weathcrall, James I,ovelock, John Carins, Gerald l~delman, and Michael Berridgc.
03(17-4412/98/$19.00 + 0.00 © I t198 I U BM B. Published by Elsevier Scienec Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 0 7 - 4 4 I 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 3 5 - 1 )
Biochemical Education 26 (1998) 265-266
Editorial
Departmental leadership with respect to teaching and research At the time of the first FEBS Congress in Varna, Bulgaria, in 1971, a discussion on biochemical education was held and the establishment was surprised at the interest aroused. Only then was the International Union happy to initiate the formation of a Committcc to promote educational matters [1]. In recent years there has bccn a pronounced change in attitude with respect to all matters of education so that we now witness our prime ministers and presidcnts promoting education at the top of their political agenda. The Biochemical Society in London has an Education Group and also a Committee responsible for Professional and Educational matters, and the ASBMB has recently h)rmcd a Task Force on educational matters and which is highly activc. Therc wcrc good sessions at the ASBMB meeting in San Francisco in 1997 and in Washington DC in 1998, and a number of sessions arc planned for the meeting, also in San Francisco, in May 1999. While we welcome the new promincncc given to education some of us must wonder where all the wonderful new teachers are to be found not only in our schools but also in our universities. With respect to universities it is a common occurrence to say goodbye to a collcaguc who has been prominent in their efforts to sclect talented students and innovate stimulating tutorials and practical courses. Such people tend to be replaced by those who are more likely to attract research grants which will enhance the research record of the department and its university. Not surprisingly such new recruits will not waste their time devising new methods of teaching for that is no way to gain promotion. So how are the dcpartmcntal objectives to be realigned so that teaching once again is clcvatcd to at least an equal status with research for I strongly believe that the two should go hand in hand. l recall past discussions when l listened to those who advocated the appointment of departmcntal chairmen who had not gained their spurs through research but through innovation in teaching. I do not go along with this view for I have noticed that unless somconc has participated in fruitful research tit a comparatively early stage in their career they will have little incentive to pursue it later. These thoughts were reinforced by my
reading an account of an intcrview with the particle physicist Carlo Rubbia, at one time director of C E R N [2]. Lewis Wolpert asked him whether at C E R N he wets rather like an emperor of a small city state. He replied "I don't think so. In sciencc there is absolutely no authority coming from rank, from position. You don't have to be a boss, you have to be a missionary. You will never get the young scientist to do something unless you convince him that he should take care of that. There is no authority in science except the one coming from convincing power." i very much agrce with thc views of Rubbia and would only add that to be a succcssful missionary either in thc sphere of religion or science you must gain the respect of your students through the possession of a substantial track rccord. My conclusion from the above thoughts is that for the status of teaching in our universities to be enhanced we should be looking for those who are going to be successful missionaries in terms of research but who also have a genuine interest in teaching - - in taking responsibility for the training of the next generation of biochemists - - and will support thosc members of staff who arc talented teachers. Such angels will be hard to lind, but the future of our universitics depends on the success of the search. Peter Campbell References [ I] In the second issue of the newly ti~rmed B i o c h e m i c a l Edt~catioJ~ in 1973 (Vol I. No 2, p 18),it was reported that it was agreed when the IUB Committee on Educalion was set up thai it should have leprcsentation of regional organisations. At thai lime the Committee consisted of P. N. Campbell and A. L. 1,ellninger (fl~r IUB), S. Rapoport and G. Semenza (for FKBS), I. W. Sizer and A. O. M. Stoppani (fl)r PAABS), and I,. K. Ramchandran and Y. Miura lot FAOB. 121 Pa,~.sifmale M i m / s - - The h m e r Worhl ~)/'Scie~ztist~', by Lewis Wolpert and Alison Richards, Oxfi)rd University Press, Oxford, 1997, pp 240. £19.99 [ISBN 019854904]. This book consists of short interviews first broadcast on the BBC. The choscn subjects cover many fields and those inteix, iewed come lrom many countries. Biochemists will be particularly interested in the views of Peler Mitchell ('arl Djerassi, l,eroy Hood, David Weathcrall, James I,ovelock, John Carins, Gerald l~delman, and Michael Berridgc.
03(17-4412/98/$19.00 + 0.00 © I t198 I U BM B. Published by Elsevier Scienec Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 0 7 - 4 4 I 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 3 5 - 1 )