Download Microbiology Department, UCC

Feedback on the Senior Cycle Biology Draft Syllabus from the Microbiology Department, University College Cork November 26, 2011 Feedback collated by Dr John Morrissey, Microbiology Department, University College Cork. Email: [email protected] phone: 021 4902392 General comments •
•
•
The draft SC Biology syllabus that was made available for consultation by the NCAA was considered and discussed by academic staff of the Microbiology Department, UCC. This staff has wide expertise in teaching many aspects of Microbiology, Genetics and Biotechnology. Collectively, the staff are very concerned at the content of the syllabus and feel very strongly that major revisions are required to make the syllabus fit for purpose. The Department would be happy to make staff available to assist in this process if requested. There are some parts of the syllabus that either reflect outmoded thinking not in keeping with current scientific orthodoxy, or (much more seriously) are simply factually wrong. Although an effort has been made to modernize the syllabus, this has only been moderately achieved. Some aspects of the syllabus still reflect an out-­‐
moded view of biology with some of the most interesting facets of modern biology not sufficiently represented. The excitement and potential of modern biology is lacking. Specific comments A. Factual inaccuracy 1. Unit 3 “Organisms and their ecology” presents a superseded view of biological classification and, if unamended, will disadvantage Irish students by equipping them with forty year old scientific dogma that has been largely invalidated by advances in molecular phylogeny since the 1970s. Section 3.1 deals with the “five-­‐kingdom system of classification”. This classification of life into 5 Kingdoms (Plants, Protists Animals, Fungi, Monera) was proposed by Whittaker in 1969. It is not a natural (true!) classification system and is not now accepted as having any validity in modern classification. Natural (true) classification is based on evolutionary relationships and divides life into three domains: Bacteria, Achaea and Eukarya, and was developed from the work of Carl Woese and colleagues on rRNA sequences. The three-­‐domain system has been accepted since 1990 – more than 20 years ago and has superseded the “five kingdoms”. These comments are made notwithstanding similar inaccuracy in higher-­‐level syllabi in some other jurisdictions, for example, the current UK A-­‐level biology syllabus! Section 3.3 seals with “Monera”. Since, as explained above, there is no such true phylogenetic group, this section must be renamed “Bacteria” as this is the topic covered. The lack of understanding of the evolutionary domains of life (above) do not inspire confidence that this important domain will be adequately covered and by definition, the third domain of life Archaea is excluded. This is a serious omission as it excludes life in extreme environments such hot springs and ocean vents. 2. Unit 5 is named “Systems biology”. This term as used is incorrect and has a very specific meaning in modern biology. Systems biology relies heavily on computation science and mathematical modeling and not just on biological “systems” as is covered in this unit. The term “systems biology” should not be (mis)used here “Systems biology is a multidiscipline biology-­‐based scientific field that focuses on the characterisation and mapping of the interactions between the elements in a biological system. It promises to unravel the complexity of the cell through the use of models that predict biological behaviour.” Systems biology Ireland http://www.ucd.ie/sbi/ “Systems biology is the study of an organism, viewed as an integrated and interacting network of genes, proteins and biochemical reactions which give rise to life”. The Institute for Systems Biology (http://www.systemsbiology.org/) 3. Unit 4 is named “molecular biology”. Unrelated to the validity of the content of this unit, much of what is covered is not what we consider “molecular biology” and this is not a good title for the unit. In reality, only units 4.5 to 4.10 could lay a realistic claim to the term. Other sections would fall under headings like cell biology, biochemistry or cell physiology. B. Lack of modernity and relevance in the curriculum 1. The unit titles reflect an effort of modernizing the curriculum without actually changing much of the underlying content (from the current syllabus). This gives rise to some issues where material is shoe-­‐horned in without due consideration as to how it actually fits that theme. Examples are units 4 and 5 mentioned above. 2. There is an overemphasis on traditional aspects of biology, namely animal biology and botany (plant science). For example, unit 5 has 2 sections on plant transport (5.1 and 5.3) as well as sections on plant response (5.7) and plant reproduction (5.10). Plant biology also features strongly in Unit 3, section 3.5 (ecology) and in unit 4 (several units). Although, plant science is, of course, relevant, the strong emphasis leaves little room for bringing in some new aspects of biology. 3. Frequently, descriptions of sub-­‐units do not reflect the actual content, or encourage accessibility for students. There are multiple examples of this – e.g. Unit 2.3 “cell continuity” to describe mitosis and cancer; unit 4.5 “Genetics and heredity” does not appear to have much of either of those. And logically, how can “Genetics and Heredity” (unit 4.5) and “Genetic inheritance” (unit 4.8) be separate units? 4. Following on from point 3 above, it must be stated that the entire way that information flow in the cell is arranged and delivered is not satisfactory. The syllabus does not reflect the continuity between DNA structure and function, and between the flow of information from DNA to mRNA to protein (the so-­‐
called “central dogma of molecular biology”). For example, there is no doubt that the best way to teach the DNA/RNA/polypeptide paradigm is in a unified Information Processing module, and not in arbitrarily split sub sections as is the case in this draft syllabus. 5. It is a major omission and very regrettable that there is not a complete unit with a title of “biology and society” or something similar. Aspects of this concept are scattered through the different units and this merited a unit of its own to give sufficient emphasis to the most exciting and interesting aspects of modern biology. These could include (inter alia) • Microbial pathogenesis and disease (including MRSA, antibiotic resistance…) • Drug development and pharmaceuticals (even more relevant than gene therapy and stem cell biology, that are (correctly) mentioned) • Biotechnology (some aspects are hidden in a few sections) • Microbial food production and food safety • Biofuels (ties in aspects of plant and microbial biotechnology) • Biogeochemical cycles, global warming and climate change • Environmental biology (some aspects buried in ecology unit) • Life in extreme environments (hot springs, ocean vents, polar ice, Mars(?)) • Genetic testing and DNA fingerprinting • Genome sequencing