- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: The need to blow our trumpet
BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION Volume 6 Number 3 CONTENTS Page 49
Editorial: The Need to blow our Trumpet
50
The International Newsletter on Chemical Education
51
The Chemical Reactions of Living Cells by Metzler. A Review Essay by Stanley Dagley
52
Book Reviews: The Synapse (2nd edition) by Gray; Essays in Neurochemistry and Ne~pha~~olo~, Yottdim, Lwenberg. Sharman and Lagaado
53
Purification and Characterisation of Escherickia R. Ray Fali
56
I.U.B. Committee on Education
coli alkaline phosphatase.
A Biochemical Experiment. By Lianna Munson and
56
Review: Compendium of Organic Synthetic Methods Volume III by Hegedus and Wade
57
Symposium of Asian and Oceanian Biochemists (F.A.O.B.) in Singapore, April 1978. By P. N. Campbet
57
The International Cell Research Organisation (ICRO)
58
A Report on an orientation Course on human physiology in Health and Disease. By Mary L. For&g
59
Review: The Story of Cancer. On its Nature, Causes and Control by Braun
60
Fiim Reviews: Insights into Biochemistry, a series of six films.
61
Book Reviews: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Action by Hammond and Lambert; Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry by Herborne; Tbii Layer Chromatography with Absorbents Woelm; Chemistry and Control of Enzyme Reactions by Scrimgeour; Cyclic 3’,5’-Nucleotides: Mechanisms of Action edited by Cramer and Schultz; The Nucleolus (2nd edition) by Jordan; Contractile Systems in Non-Muscle Tissues edited by Perry, Margreth and Adelstein; Solid Fhase Methods in Protein Sequence Analysis edited by Preview and Coletti-Previero; Secondary Metabolism in Plants and Animals by Luckner; Immunochemistry: An Advanced Textbook edited by G&ma and Steward; Cellular Immunology by Gowans; Methods in Immunology (3rd edition) by Garvey, Crcmer and Sussdorf; BiologicaI Rhythms and Living Clocks by Palmer; Methods of Bi~hemic~ Analysis, Volume 24 edited by Click; Horizons in Biochemistry and Biophysics edited by Quagliariello, Palmieri and Singer; Introduction to Biochemistry (2nd edition) by Suttie; Catastrophe Theory. Selected Papers 1972-77 by Zeeman; The Biochemistry of Viruses by Mart&r; Transcription of DNA (2nd edition) by Travera; Fundam~t~ of General, Organic and Biological Chemistry by Holum; Organic Reaction Mechanisms 1976 edited by Butter and Perkins; Venoms - Chemistry and Molecular Biology by 7”~; An Introduction to Practical Biochemistry (2nd edition) by Pfummer.
I
II
Volume 2, edited by
1 EDITORS: THE NEED TO BLOW OUR TRUMPET
I
I
It is probably true that the majority of teachers of biochemistry are satisfied with both the number and quality of applicants coming forward and wishing to read for a science degree in biochemistry and this makes teaching them all the more pleasant. An almost embarassingly large number of very well qualified students are knocking at the doors of our medical schools asking for admission and so teaching preclinical biochemistry is likewise an academically rewarding occupation so long as one can keep the medical student from the infection which lea& him to believe that biochemistry is not highly relevant to medicine and is merely an annoying hurdle to be cleared before access is gained to the fair fields of clinical medicine. Let us return to the science students. We can be pleased that our subject is still popular but we should not assume that this must always necessarily remain so. It is salutary to look back and see what happened to chemistry and physics during the last decade or so. These subjects were at one time held in high regard by prospective students. It was alleged that the “pecking or&r” was mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and, at the bottom, psychology. In the nineteen fifties and early sixties, chemistry and physics were in a euphoric state of expansion and spawning new buildings. Now these palaces are under-occupied because the students are not coming forward. A downturn in the economy leading to a sudden fall in the demand for chemistry graduates was noted by school career advisors and many would-be chemists
decided to turn to other subjects. This was one contributory cause but the underlying reasons for the disenchancement are probably much more subtle. The inclinations of the rising generation are moulded by many factors, not least by the media and by idealism. Fhysics perhaps had the misfortune to become identified with hydrogen bombs and the threats of radioactive contamination of the environment by atomic power stations. Support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Down with Physics! Chemistry also had a bad press - Napalm in Vietman, pollution of the environment with pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adulteration of food by chemical additives, carcinogenic compounds threatening from all sides - Lets have a cleaner World and Down with Chemistry1 Our chemical colleagues are now actively considering how the image of chemistry may be improved and its popularity restored. An in~mation~ Symposium on Chemical Education was hefd last August in Ljubljana in Jugoslavia and was attended by over 400 participants from 45 countries. Commenting on this symposium in the IUPAC Newsletter’, the Editor, Professor C. N. R. Rao writes: “One of the real issues of concern at the Symposium was that the future of chemistry itself was in doubt. There is a declining population of chemistry students and a decrease in the number of good students entering chemistry. The general feeling was that all is not well with chemical education. Somehow, the message of chemical educators seemed to have failed to reach a large segment of the population including students at all levels. “Chemistry has to get identified with the pressing problems of mankind. Chemistry has to fiid a major and meaningful place in general education (and not in professional education of chemists alone). Chemistry has to be used as a vehicle for inculcating probiem-diving and
50
BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION
rational thinking abilities in students. The content of chemistry courses should not be dictated by historical precedent but by a desire to tell students where the action is. Chemical education should be concerned as much with attitudes as it is with knowledge and skills". The Symposium considered the changing needs and demands of society, the developing nature and scope of chemical sciences, students' aspirations and attitudes and the demands in the developing countries. It was emphasised that today's and tomorrow's citizens must be aware of the benefits that chemistry can bestow on mankind as well as the hazards that await us. The difficulties that many children had in understanding the subject were examined and new curricula came under criticism because of their preoccupation with principles and it was questioned whether children are at an age when they can appreciate the concepts to which they are introduced. There was a clear call for a reassessment of the swing towards the introduction of more sophisticated concepts and away from the descriptive side of chemistry. I think that as biochemistry teachers, we would prefer that students should arrive from school with a sound and down-to-earth knowledge of chemistry and that we are not too happy with the current tendency for superficial biochemistry to be squeezed into the new chemistry curricula at the expense of straight chemistry. We have heard the probably apocryphal story of the precocious schoolboy who claimed to understand all about the double helix, the genetic code and nucleic acids but admitted under pressure that what he really did not understand was what an acid was. Our rallying call should be "Give us people with the chemical background and we will teach the biochemistry". The Symposium discussed the problems of teaching chemistry in developing countries and it was suggested that one should concentrate on people, not things i.e. teachers rather than new curricula, apparatus, buildings. Teachers training, both introductory and in-service, etc. was important. Among suggestions for ways in which the IUPAC Committee on the Teaching of Chemistry might help were: to consider the establishment of an
INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER ON CHEMICAL EDUCATION This is published by the Committee on the Teaching of Chemistry which is under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and with some financial support from UNESCO. The Newsletters are intended to promote an exchange of ideas and to disseminate information on new developments in chemical education all over the world. The aims are thus very similar to our own in the biochemical area. The Newsletters can be obtained free-of-charge from the Secretariat of IUPAC, Bank Court Cambers, 2-3 Pound Way, Cowley Centre, Oxford OX4 3YF, U.K. Issue 7 (December 1977) carried a report on the international Symposium on Chemical Education held in Ljubljana and which was mentioned in the Editorial of this issue of Biochemical Education. Other articles dealt with Plaget and the Teaching of Chemistry (Grotz, Wisconsin), Computer and Chemistry Learning
July 1978 Vol. 6 No. 3
international centre for chemical education to which teachers and curriculum designers can go, particularly from various regions of the developing world, for short courses, seminars and interaction with their colleagues; a small symposium to discuss the interface between school and university; to have a resource bank of teaching materials containing a large number of clear diagrams which could be copied by teachers as slides or wall-charts; to produce source books for the production of low-cost equipment and simple experiments at the secondary school level; and to produce a book on chemical education during the six-year period 1972-78 outlining new curricula and changes in chemical education throughout the world. While the teaching of chemistry and biochemistry in developing countries differs in that the teaching of biochemistry is exclusively at university level, nevertheless, some of these ideas are worth our consideration. Undergraduate experiments using low cost materials and not requiring sophisticated instrumentation might be useful and a bank of diagrams has attractions. Some of the post-war generation may feel that the innocent and purely academic researches of Rutherford and his associates led to the release of an evil genie which the scientists could no longer control as it became the slave of politicians and war-lords. It would be a pity if youngsters got misguided ideas about modern biochemistry and feared that the potential dangers exceeded the benefits. We ought to reassure them that genetic engineering is not about to produce a race of bug-eyed monsters, that the human cloning of a battalion of Adolf Hitlers is not just around the corner, that thalidomide is not a typical result of biochemical research that honest food is not about to be replaced by a twice-a-day energy and vitamin pill. In brief, let us remember that biochemical education involves blowing our own trumpet to dispel spooks and that the objective of our clarion call is to help recruit bright young scientists to our biochemical ranks. Like the chemists, we should be thinking of ways of increasing the awareness of today's and tomorrow's citizens of the benefits and attractions of our science. B. A. Kilby t See below. at Mohawk College in Canada (Singh, Hamilton) Teaching Chemistry in Medical Education (Frazer, Norwich, U.K.), Chemical Education in the Arab Region (Waddington, York, U.K.) and a letter from our own Dr. Campbell in which he is critical of the way in which chemistry departments are being run and discusses the malaise among chemistry students. The major part of Issue 7 (April 1978) is devoted to reporting the outcome of a preliminary survey of Chemical Education in 23 countries carried out by Professor V. N. R. Rao. He finds that chemistry is highly popular among students at the college and university level in developing countries but that the lack of trained teachers and training facilities for them and the lack of equipment and chemicals for undergraduate students results in inadequate laboratory training. The training of teachers is covered in another article by Cros and Maurin (Montpellier, France) dealing with the use of videoscopy techniques. The graduate undergoing teacher training sees himself on television delivering a lecture and giving a practical demonstration. Self-analysis and comment from the training teacher and fellow trainees are then possible.
Biochemical Education is published from the Editorial Office, Department of Biochemistry, 9 Hyde Terrace, Leeds, England. LS2 9LS.
Annual subscription for Volume 6 (1978): $8.00 or £4.00 in the U.K. for the four issues including postage by surface mall (printed paper rate): $9.00 if sent by 2nd class airmail. Vol. 1 (1973) and Vol. 2 (1974) available at $6.00 or £2.00 and Vol. 3 (1975) and Vol. 4 (1976) at $8.043 or £3.00 each and Vol. S (1977) at $8.00 or £4.00, all including surface postage. Please make cheques, etc. payable to Biochemical Education. © 1978 Published in January, April, July and October. Editorial Board
P. N. Campbell (Co-editor) S. Dagley (Co-editor) T. M. Devlin (Co-editor) P. Karlson (Co-editor)
B. A. Kilby (Editor)
Courtauld Institute of Biochemistry, The Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London, W1P 5PR. Department of Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, USA. Department of Biochemistry, The Hahnemann Medical College & Hospital of Philadelphia, 230 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102, USA. Institut ffir Physiologische Chemic, den Lahnberge, 355 Marburg (Lahn), Germany. c/o The Editorial Office, Leeds.
Editorial: The Need to blow our Trumpet
50
The International Newsletter on Chemical Education
51
The Chemical Reactions of Living Cells by Metzler. A Review Essay by Stanley Dagley
52
Book Reviews: The Synapse (2nd edition) by Gray; Essays in Neurochemistry and Ne~pha~~olo~, Yottdim, Lwenberg. Sharman and Lagaado
53
Purification and Characterisation of Escherickia R. Ray Fali
56
I.U.B. Committee on Education
coli alkaline phosphatase.
A Biochemical Experiment. By Lianna Munson and
56
Review: Compendium of Organic Synthetic Methods Volume III by Hegedus and Wade
57
Symposium of Asian and Oceanian Biochemists (F.A.O.B.) in Singapore, April 1978. By P. N. Campbet
57
The International Cell Research Organisation (ICRO)
58
A Report on an orientation Course on human physiology in Health and Disease. By Mary L. For&g
59
Review: The Story of Cancer. On its Nature, Causes and Control by Braun
60
Fiim Reviews: Insights into Biochemistry, a series of six films.
61
Book Reviews: Antibiotics and Antimicrobial Action by Hammond and Lambert; Introduction to Ecological Biochemistry by Herborne; Tbii Layer Chromatography with Absorbents Woelm; Chemistry and Control of Enzyme Reactions by Scrimgeour; Cyclic 3’,5’-Nucleotides: Mechanisms of Action edited by Cramer and Schultz; The Nucleolus (2nd edition) by Jordan; Contractile Systems in Non-Muscle Tissues edited by Perry, Margreth and Adelstein; Solid Fhase Methods in Protein Sequence Analysis edited by Preview and Coletti-Previero; Secondary Metabolism in Plants and Animals by Luckner; Immunochemistry: An Advanced Textbook edited by G&ma and Steward; Cellular Immunology by Gowans; Methods in Immunology (3rd edition) by Garvey, Crcmer and Sussdorf; BiologicaI Rhythms and Living Clocks by Palmer; Methods of Bi~hemic~ Analysis, Volume 24 edited by Click; Horizons in Biochemistry and Biophysics edited by Quagliariello, Palmieri and Singer; Introduction to Biochemistry (2nd edition) by Suttie; Catastrophe Theory. Selected Papers 1972-77 by Zeeman; The Biochemistry of Viruses by Mart&r; Transcription of DNA (2nd edition) by Travera; Fundam~t~ of General, Organic and Biological Chemistry by Holum; Organic Reaction Mechanisms 1976 edited by Butter and Perkins; Venoms - Chemistry and Molecular Biology by 7”~; An Introduction to Practical Biochemistry (2nd edition) by Pfummer.
I
II
Volume 2, edited by
1 EDITORS: THE NEED TO BLOW OUR TRUMPET
I
I
It is probably true that the majority of teachers of biochemistry are satisfied with both the number and quality of applicants coming forward and wishing to read for a science degree in biochemistry and this makes teaching them all the more pleasant. An almost embarassingly large number of very well qualified students are knocking at the doors of our medical schools asking for admission and so teaching preclinical biochemistry is likewise an academically rewarding occupation so long as one can keep the medical student from the infection which lea& him to believe that biochemistry is not highly relevant to medicine and is merely an annoying hurdle to be cleared before access is gained to the fair fields of clinical medicine. Let us return to the science students. We can be pleased that our subject is still popular but we should not assume that this must always necessarily remain so. It is salutary to look back and see what happened to chemistry and physics during the last decade or so. These subjects were at one time held in high regard by prospective students. It was alleged that the “pecking or&r” was mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and, at the bottom, psychology. In the nineteen fifties and early sixties, chemistry and physics were in a euphoric state of expansion and spawning new buildings. Now these palaces are under-occupied because the students are not coming forward. A downturn in the economy leading to a sudden fall in the demand for chemistry graduates was noted by school career advisors and many would-be chemists
decided to turn to other subjects. This was one contributory cause but the underlying reasons for the disenchancement are probably much more subtle. The inclinations of the rising generation are moulded by many factors, not least by the media and by idealism. Fhysics perhaps had the misfortune to become identified with hydrogen bombs and the threats of radioactive contamination of the environment by atomic power stations. Support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Down with Physics! Chemistry also had a bad press - Napalm in Vietman, pollution of the environment with pesticides and other toxic chemicals, adulteration of food by chemical additives, carcinogenic compounds threatening from all sides - Lets have a cleaner World and Down with Chemistry1 Our chemical colleagues are now actively considering how the image of chemistry may be improved and its popularity restored. An in~mation~ Symposium on Chemical Education was hefd last August in Ljubljana in Jugoslavia and was attended by over 400 participants from 45 countries. Commenting on this symposium in the IUPAC Newsletter’, the Editor, Professor C. N. R. Rao writes: “One of the real issues of concern at the Symposium was that the future of chemistry itself was in doubt. There is a declining population of chemistry students and a decrease in the number of good students entering chemistry. The general feeling was that all is not well with chemical education. Somehow, the message of chemical educators seemed to have failed to reach a large segment of the population including students at all levels. “Chemistry has to get identified with the pressing problems of mankind. Chemistry has to fiid a major and meaningful place in general education (and not in professional education of chemists alone). Chemistry has to be used as a vehicle for inculcating probiem-diving and
50
BIOCHEMICAL EDUCATION
rational thinking abilities in students. The content of chemistry courses should not be dictated by historical precedent but by a desire to tell students where the action is. Chemical education should be concerned as much with attitudes as it is with knowledge and skills". The Symposium considered the changing needs and demands of society, the developing nature and scope of chemical sciences, students' aspirations and attitudes and the demands in the developing countries. It was emphasised that today's and tomorrow's citizens must be aware of the benefits that chemistry can bestow on mankind as well as the hazards that await us. The difficulties that many children had in understanding the subject were examined and new curricula came under criticism because of their preoccupation with principles and it was questioned whether children are at an age when they can appreciate the concepts to which they are introduced. There was a clear call for a reassessment of the swing towards the introduction of more sophisticated concepts and away from the descriptive side of chemistry. I think that as biochemistry teachers, we would prefer that students should arrive from school with a sound and down-to-earth knowledge of chemistry and that we are not too happy with the current tendency for superficial biochemistry to be squeezed into the new chemistry curricula at the expense of straight chemistry. We have heard the probably apocryphal story of the precocious schoolboy who claimed to understand all about the double helix, the genetic code and nucleic acids but admitted under pressure that what he really did not understand was what an acid was. Our rallying call should be "Give us people with the chemical background and we will teach the biochemistry". The Symposium discussed the problems of teaching chemistry in developing countries and it was suggested that one should concentrate on people, not things i.e. teachers rather than new curricula, apparatus, buildings. Teachers training, both introductory and in-service, etc. was important. Among suggestions for ways in which the IUPAC Committee on the Teaching of Chemistry might help were: to consider the establishment of an
INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER ON CHEMICAL EDUCATION This is published by the Committee on the Teaching of Chemistry which is under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and with some financial support from UNESCO. The Newsletters are intended to promote an exchange of ideas and to disseminate information on new developments in chemical education all over the world. The aims are thus very similar to our own in the biochemical area. The Newsletters can be obtained free-of-charge from the Secretariat of IUPAC, Bank Court Cambers, 2-3 Pound Way, Cowley Centre, Oxford OX4 3YF, U.K. Issue 7 (December 1977) carried a report on the international Symposium on Chemical Education held in Ljubljana and which was mentioned in the Editorial of this issue of Biochemical Education. Other articles dealt with Plaget and the Teaching of Chemistry (Grotz, Wisconsin), Computer and Chemistry Learning
July 1978 Vol. 6 No. 3
international centre for chemical education to which teachers and curriculum designers can go, particularly from various regions of the developing world, for short courses, seminars and interaction with their colleagues; a small symposium to discuss the interface between school and university; to have a resource bank of teaching materials containing a large number of clear diagrams which could be copied by teachers as slides or wall-charts; to produce source books for the production of low-cost equipment and simple experiments at the secondary school level; and to produce a book on chemical education during the six-year period 1972-78 outlining new curricula and changes in chemical education throughout the world. While the teaching of chemistry and biochemistry in developing countries differs in that the teaching of biochemistry is exclusively at university level, nevertheless, some of these ideas are worth our consideration. Undergraduate experiments using low cost materials and not requiring sophisticated instrumentation might be useful and a bank of diagrams has attractions. Some of the post-war generation may feel that the innocent and purely academic researches of Rutherford and his associates led to the release of an evil genie which the scientists could no longer control as it became the slave of politicians and war-lords. It would be a pity if youngsters got misguided ideas about modern biochemistry and feared that the potential dangers exceeded the benefits. We ought to reassure them that genetic engineering is not about to produce a race of bug-eyed monsters, that the human cloning of a battalion of Adolf Hitlers is not just around the corner, that thalidomide is not a typical result of biochemical research that honest food is not about to be replaced by a twice-a-day energy and vitamin pill. In brief, let us remember that biochemical education involves blowing our own trumpet to dispel spooks and that the objective of our clarion call is to help recruit bright young scientists to our biochemical ranks. Like the chemists, we should be thinking of ways of increasing the awareness of today's and tomorrow's citizens of the benefits and attractions of our science. B. A. Kilby t See below. at Mohawk College in Canada (Singh, Hamilton) Teaching Chemistry in Medical Education (Frazer, Norwich, U.K.), Chemical Education in the Arab Region (Waddington, York, U.K.) and a letter from our own Dr. Campbell in which he is critical of the way in which chemistry departments are being run and discusses the malaise among chemistry students. The major part of Issue 7 (April 1978) is devoted to reporting the outcome of a preliminary survey of Chemical Education in 23 countries carried out by Professor V. N. R. Rao. He finds that chemistry is highly popular among students at the college and university level in developing countries but that the lack of trained teachers and training facilities for them and the lack of equipment and chemicals for undergraduate students results in inadequate laboratory training. The training of teachers is covered in another article by Cros and Maurin (Montpellier, France) dealing with the use of videoscopy techniques. The graduate undergoing teacher training sees himself on television delivering a lecture and giving a practical demonstration. Self-analysis and comment from the training teacher and fellow trainees are then possible.
Biochemical Education is published from the Editorial Office, Department of Biochemistry, 9 Hyde Terrace, Leeds, England. LS2 9LS.
Annual subscription for Volume 6 (1978): $8.00 or £4.00 in the U.K. for the four issues including postage by surface mall (printed paper rate): $9.00 if sent by 2nd class airmail. Vol. 1 (1973) and Vol. 2 (1974) available at $6.00 or £2.00 and Vol. 3 (1975) and Vol. 4 (1976) at $8.043 or £3.00 each and Vol. S (1977) at $8.00 or £4.00, all including surface postage. Please make cheques, etc. payable to Biochemical Education. © 1978 Published in January, April, July and October. Editorial Board
P. N. Campbell (Co-editor) S. Dagley (Co-editor) T. M. Devlin (Co-editor) P. Karlson (Co-editor)
B. A. Kilby (Editor)
Courtauld Institute of Biochemistry, The Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London, W1P 5PR. Department of Biochemistry, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, USA. Department of Biochemistry, The Hahnemann Medical College & Hospital of Philadelphia, 230 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102, USA. Institut ffir Physiologische Chemic, den Lahnberge, 355 Marburg (Lahn), Germany. c/o The Editorial Office, Leeds.