Science Spotlight: Liberal Arts Lags in Science

I was browsing the Sites Dot Middlebury blog, “Core and Change in the Liberal Arts,” — an online hub for this conversation on campus — and I noticed that there has been no conversation about science requirements on campus, despite the proposed discussion topic. Well, I would like to weigh into that conversation now — belatedly I know — but better late than never.

Elsewhere on the blog site, I found a broad range of definitions for a liberal arts education. The definitions that resonated most with me were those that addressed the necessity of the liberal arts “to produce engaged citizens who can think critically about the world around them,” citizens who can “pursue an active life and be informed in public discourse.”

A goal of the liberal arts education, they suggested, is to create citizens who can critically engage the world and use that engagement to participate in public discourse in a meaningful way. Why is that such an appealing goal of a liberal arts education?  Aristotle’s admonishment, “the neglect of education does harm to the constitution” comes to mind. A fear of the sciences, however, has seemed to cultivate a new form of educational neglect.

When I think about the world we live in today, I am struck by how reliant we are on the hard sciences. Nearly everything we interact with on a daily basis has been touched in some way — whether for better or for worse, I will not judge — by physics, chemistry and biology. Modern medicine. Modern agriculture. Communication technology. Building infrastructure. One would be hard-pressed to find an aspect of our modern life not impacted by scientific discoveries from these broad disciplines.

But how much of that interaction do we understand, even at a very basic level?

How able are we, as citizens, to think critically about the products churned out as a result of scientific inquiry? Should we not have an elementary understanding of molecular interactions in the body, so that we can grasp the impacts of a new drug? Or an understanding of the basic chemistry behind fertilizer production, so that we understand what we’re potentially putting on our food and by extension into our bodies? Should we not have a functional understanding of genetics so that we can engage meaningfully in the dialogues around genetic modification of agricultural products and medical diagnostics? Should we not understand the science behind global temperature regulation if we are to advocate for the reduction of fossil fuel consumption?

An active and engaged citizen in a world so influenced by science must have obtained a basic level of scientific knowledge and an intimate understanding of the scientific process. Such a citizen must understand the mode of questioning, the development of a testable hypothesis, the objective testing of that hypothesis and the resultant revisions to said hypothesis.

Are we gaining that understanding here at Middlebury? I would argue that we’re not. Of the eight distribution requirements (seven of which must be fulfilled), only one encourages an engagement with the vast body of scientific knowledge and the intricate and demanding mode of scientific investigation.

For those who don’t opt out of the SCI requirement, those who are brave enough to venture into the realm of the intro-level science courses, the experience can be a miserable one. As a friend said recently, “the learning curve in an intro-level science class is steep and daunting.” Unless a student is planning to major in the sciences, one can easily imagine them saying: why bother?

Though I have not thought long enough or hard enough about the distribution requirements and introductory science classes to thoroughly analyze and critique their utility, I would like to make a broad proposal. I propose that an overhaul of both the distribution requirement system and the introductory science curriculum is in order.

It strikes me that the average non-science major at Middlebury will not graduate with enough exposure to science to be able to critically engage on the myriad of scientific issues with societal relevance that we will be confronted with when we graduate, to say nothing of the intellectual perspective one gains by fundamentally understanding physical reality.

The problem is two-fold: 1) Middlebury students are not forced to engage with the sciences to the extent they should and 2) The introductory curriculums across the scientific disciplines are not necessarily designed to engage students looking to obtain a basic level of scientific literacy without the time commitment of a lab class.

To annotate that last point: the Introduction to Neuroscience course that will be offered next fall, Physics 155 (An Introduction to the Universe) and Natural Science and the Environment all seem to be courses aimed at a broader audience. They represent a step in the right direction. But the College needs more of those overview courses that touch upon topics in science with implications for society, and engagement with those courses must be required. Such courses will give students a base of knowledge to work with when we step outside of the College and into a world dominated by science.

Such changes will not be easy to make, but if the College wishes to continue educating engaged and well-rounded citizens, it is a necessary step — one that is well worth the time and energy commitment necessary to overhaul the current system.