1. science

COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S)
FOR NSF USE ONLY
(Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e., program, division, etc.)
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
COURSE, CURRICULUM AND LABORATORY IMPROVEMENT:
Adaptation and Implementation
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/If not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter GPG, NSF 95-27
NSF 9845 CCLI-A&I
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
63-0288811
DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
FILE LOCATION
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
A RENEWAL OR
AGENCY?
YES
NO
IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
AN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING ZIP CODE
Birmingham-Southern College
0010124000
Birmingham-Southern College
900 Arkadelphia Road
Birmingham, Alabama 35254
NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE
ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING ZIP CODE
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply)
(See GPG II.D.1 For Definitions)
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
REQUESTED AMOUNT
$20,383
FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
SMALL BUSINESS
MINORITY BUSINESS
WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS
A Collaborative Recombinant DNA Technology Course with Laboratory
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
months
24
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
1 August 1999
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.A.3)
VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.12) IACUC App. Date
DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.D.1)
PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG II.D.10)
HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.12)
Exemption Subsection
or IRB App. Date
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (GPG II.D.10)
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES
HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.D.10)
SMALL GRANT FOR EXPLOR. RESEARCH (SGER) (GPG II.D.12)
FACILITATION FOR SCIENTISTS/ENGINEERS WITH DISABILITIES (GPG V.G.)
GROUP PROPOSAL (GPG II.D.12)
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY AWARD (GPG V.H)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
Biology
205-226-3078
Division of Science and Mathematics, Box 549022
Birmingham-Southern College
Birmingham, Alabama 35254
NAMES (TYPED)
Social Security No.*
High Degree, Yr
082-48-2118
Ph.D. 1982
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
Telephone Number
Electronic Mail Address
PI/PD NAME
Leo Pezzementi
205-226-4880
[email protected]
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
NOTE: THE FULLY SIGNED CERTIFICATION PAGE MUST BE SUBMITTED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS COVER SHEET
*SUBMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS IS VOLUNTARY AND WILL NOT AFFECT THE ORGANIZATION’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN AWARD. HOWEVER, THEY ARE
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE NSF INFORMATION SYSTEM AND ASSIST IN PROCESSING THE PROPOSAL. SSN SOLICITED UNDER NSF ACT OF 1950, AS AMENDED.
NSF Form 1207 (7/95)
Page 1
1
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators
I certify to the best of my knowledge that:
(1) the statements herein (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and
(2) the text and graphics herein as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise indicated, are the original work of the
signatories or individuals working under their supervision. I agree to accept responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the
required progress reports if an award is made as a result of this application.
I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this proposal or any other communication submitted to NSF is a
criminal offense (U.S.Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Name (Typed)
PI/PD
Leo Pezzementi
Signature
Date
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Co-PI/PD
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant
By signing and submitting this proposal, the individual applicant or the authorized official of the applicant institution is: (1) certifying that statements made
herein are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if
an award is made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding Federal debt status, debarment and
suspension, drugfree workplace, and lobbying activities (see below), as set forth in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF 95-27. Willful provision of
false information in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18,
Section 1001).
In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, the authorized official of the applicant institution is certifying that the institution has
implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual Section 510; that to the best of
his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have
been satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the institution’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in accordance with the institution’s
conflict of interest policy. Conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.
Debt and Debarment Certifications
(If answer “yes” to either, please provide explanation.)
Is the organization delinquent on any Federal debt?
Yes
No
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal Department or agency?
Yes
No
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or
a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities,” in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including
subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this
certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the
required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
NAME/TITLE (TYPED)
Neal Berte, President
TELEPHONE NUMBER
205-226-4620
ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS
[email protected]
SIGNATURE
DATE
FAX NUMBER
205-226-4627
1
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Division of Undergraduate Education
PROJECT DATA FORM
The instructions and codes to be used in completing this form begin above.
1. Program to which the Proposal is Submitted: CCLI-A&I
2. Type of Submission: PR
3. Name of Principal Investigator/Project Director (as shown on the
Cover Sheet): Leo Pezzementi
4. Name of Submitting Institution (as shown on the Cover Sheet): Birmingham-Southern College
5. Other institutions involved in the project's operation:
ATE and CETP only:
Preliminary Proposal Number (s) that led to this
proposal ________________
PROJECT CODES
A. Major Discipline Code: 61 - Subfields: Biochemistry; Biotechnology; Cell Biology; Genetics;
Molecular Biology; Neurobiology; Pharmacology.
B. Academic Focus Level of Project: UP
C. Highest Degree Code: B
D. Category Code:
E. Business/Industry Participation Code:
F. Audience Code:
G. Institution Code: PRIV
H. Strategic Area Code: BT
Estimated number in each of the following categories to be directly affected by the activities of
the project during its operation:
2
J. Undergraduate Students: I expect that this class will be offered yearly. Typically, our upper
level elective classes are limited to 16 students.
Number of undergraduate students on average involved each year.
Biology 325
Biology 402
Biology 412
16
16
8
Undergrad.
Research
12
Total
52
K. Pre-college Students: 0
L. College Faculty: 3+
M. Pre-college Teachers: 0
N. Total Non-NSF Contribution: $20,383
Project Summary: A Modern Recombinant DNA Technology Course Laboratory
Birmingham-Southern College will develop a course in recombinant DNA technology. Both the
classroom and laboratory portions of the course are designed to promote contextual,
collaborative, inquiry-based learning of science, where students teach one another and have a
sense of ownership of their education. In class, emphasis will be on group presentations and
critical reading and discussion of scientific articles that use recombinant DNA technology to
address questions in both basic and applied research. In the laboratory, investigative laboratory
projects will be performed. These laboratory projects will answer two questions that students
always seem to ask: 1. How do you clone a gene? 2. And so then what do you do with it? The
two projects are random cDNA cloning, and in vitro expression and site-directed mutagenesis of
cholinesterase; the latter project will integrate the research and teaching of the principal
investigator. Students will present the results of these two laboratory projects in a poster and in a
paper with the format of a scientific article. The goals of this course are consonant with those of
the new science division mission statement and the new general education program of the College.
The proposal requests funds for laboratory equipment and course development and evaluation.
NSF Form 1295 (10/94)
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CoverSheet................................................................................................................………........................…………1
Project Data Form and Project Summary...................................................................……......................…………2
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................….…...................…………4
Project Narrative including Results from Prior NSF Support........................................….....................…………5
Project Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………...5
Goals………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Context for the Proposal.....................................................................................…......….....…….…………6
Project Description.................................................................................................….………………………8
Faculty Expertise.....................................................................................................……………………….14
Evaluation.....................…........................................…………......………….............…......………………15
Dissemination..................…................................................……….....................………..…….…………..15
Equipment Request..........................................................................................………….….........………...15
Equipment on Hand for the Project...........................................................................……………….…….17
Implementation and Equipment Maintenance….…............……………………………………………....18
Results from Prior NSF Support..……...............……...................………….................……...............…..18
References Cited...............................................................................…...........................….........….…………20
Biographical Sketch for Leo Pezzementi, P.I....................................................................……………....….23
Biographical Sketch for Larry Fish, Evaluation Consultant……………………………………………….25
Budget and Budget Justification..............................................................................................………………27
Current and Pending Support.....................................................................................................…………….32
Appendix I.
Data on graduates in the sciences................................…………………………………..33
Appendix II. Science Mission Statement………………………………………….............…………...34
Appendix III. Expanding the Paradigm of General Education.............................................…………...36
Appendix IV. Letters of institutional commitment and endorsement……...……………………………38
Appendix V.
Syllabus for Biology 363, Molecular Cell Biology, 1993..........….……………………..41
Appendix VI. Discussion worksheet…………………………………………………………………….42
Appendix VII. Questionnaire about pilot cloning project.......................................……………………..43
Appendix VIII.
Laboratory outline.....................................………………………………….…………...44
Appendix IX. Major equipment available for use by undergraduates...................................…………..45
4
Project Narrative including Results from Prior NSF Support.
Project Overview. Birmingham-Southern College will develop a course in recombinant DNA
technology. Both the classroom and laboratory portions of the course are designed to promote
contextual, collaborative/cooperative, inquiry-based learning of science, where students learn from
one another and have a sense of ownership of their education. In class, group presentations and
critical reading and discussion of scientific articles will be emphasized. In the laboratory
investigative laboratory projects will be performed. These laboratory projects will answer two
questions that students always seem to ask: 1. How do you clone a gene? 2. And so then what do
you do with it? The two projects are random cDNA cloning, and in vitro expression and sitedirected mutagenesis of cholinesterase; the latter project will integrate the research and teaching of
the principal investigator. Students will present the results of their laboratory investigations in a
poster and in a paper with the format of a scientific article. The goals of this course are consonant
with those of the new science division mission statement and the new general education program of
the College, and the course has the potential to make a positive impact on these programs. The
proposal requests funds for equipment, course development, and evaluation.
Goals. The recombinant DNA technology course described in this proposal will teach students
•
molecular biology in the context of the application of recombinant DNA technology to basic
and applied research,
•
how to read, present, and discuss critically scientific articles,
•
how to design and perform genetic engineering experiments in the laboratory, and analyze the
results of these experiments,
•
how to present scientific results in a poster and in a scientific research article, and
•
how to work collaboratively/cooperatively in both the theory and practice of science.
5
The classroom and laboratory portions of this course are designed to give students a better
understanding of both the content and process of science, and to promote interactive,
collaborative/cooperative, inquiry-based learning, an effective form of learning where students
teach one another and have a sense of ownership of their education. The broader implications of the
project for the College are described below.
Context for the Proposal. Birmingham-Southern College is a small liberal arts college with a long
tradition of excellence in undergraduate education. In 1985, the College was ranked as the #1
Regional Liberal Arts College in the South by U.S. News & World Report. The following year, the
College was reclassified as a National Liberal Arts College by the Carnegie Foundation. Since that
time, the College has moved up in the rankings to the second tier of that group, which also includes
Allegheny, Dickinson, Earlham, and Knox Colleges, among others. Birmingham-Southern is one of
only two sheltering institutions for Phi Beta Kappa in Alabama. The College also has a tradition of
quality science and pre-health professional programs. (Appendix I)
In 1993-1994, the biology faculty began to phase in a new research-rich, investigative
curriculum, stressing both the process and content of biological science. We think that this new
curriculum has contributed to the higher scores of our seniors on the Biology Major Field
Achievement Test, one tool used to assess the major (Appendix I)
Between 1994 and 1996, the natural science faculty developed a science mission statement that
was informed by conferences and publications of Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL; 1991) and the
Council on Undergraduate Research (1990-1997), and evaluated in the Spring of 1996 by the
PKAL/Keck consulting team of Dr. Daniel Sullivan, then President of Allegheny College, and Dr.
Joseph Priest, Professor of Physics at Miami University. In the preamble to our mission, we
outlined our goal and our strategy: We, the natural science faculty and the administration of
6
Birmingham-Southern College, desire to form a vital, collaborative learning community of
students, faculty, and staff in the natural sciences. To foster the creation of this community, the
College commits within its financial resources to maintaining, supporting, and expanding fieldand laboratory-intensive, investigative curricula in biology, chemistry and physics.
In their report, the consultants endorsed our vision: First of all, we believe that your
aspirations -- forming "a vital, collaborative learning community of students, faculty, and staff in
the natural sciences" at least partly by "maintaining, supporting, and expanding field-and
laboratory-intensive, investigative curricula"--are exactly right. Strong colleges in science have
demonstrated that such a strategy works.
We also think that our goals and strategy are consistent with recent recommendations from the
National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences; 1996, 1997), the NSF (1996), the
Boyer Commission (1998), and the Pew Charitable Trusts (1998), which stated succinctly: Today,
there is a broadly shared consensus that students learn best in a hands-on, inquiry-based
approach to scientific discovery – and there is a growing conviction within the profession that
science curricula and pedagogy ought to reflect this understanding. One indication that the
investigative, research-rich curricula that we introduced in the sciences are creating a learning
community is the increase in the numbers of students involved in undergraduate research projects.
In the 1992-1993 academic year and summer, only a handful of students in the sciences participated
in collaborative student/faculty research projects. Now, more than 50 students participate in
research projects in the sciences, with half of these students conducting research in biology.
(Appendix I) We are currently refining our mission statement as we begin to plan new science
facilities, placing a greater emphasis on student learning; however, its essential features remain the
same. (Appendix II) In a related development, last year the faculty adopted a report of the General
7
Education Committee, Expanding the Paradigm of General Education. The Expanded Paradigm
stresses the importance of the following areas in a liberal education: collaborative learning,
discovery and creativity, teaching experiences, scholarship, technology as a partner in teaching and
research, civic imagination, cross-cultural experiences, and moral imagination. (Appendix III) The
report states: The aim of Birmingham-Southern College is in no way to limit, much less replace,
the traditional notion of general education but rather to expand it to address the expanding set of
talents and skills necessary for learned people in an increasingly complex social and
technological society. The College has received a $100,000 grant from the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation to implement the Expanded Paradigm across the curriculum. The recombinant
DNA technology course described in this proposal will fulfill many of the general education goals
of the Expanded Paradigm, and will extend the investigative, research-rich curriculum in biology
into the area of genetic engineering, an experimental approach that has permeated and had a
positive, albeit sometimes controversial, impact on virtually every field in the biological sciences.
(See Appendix IV for letters of institutional commitment and endorsement)
Project Description. Although this grant proposal requests funds primarily for equipment to be
used in the laboratory portion of the new recombinant DNA technology course, both the classroom
and
laboratory
portions
of
the
course
are
designed
to
promote
interactive,
collaborative/cooperative, inquiry-based learning, where students learn from one another and have
a sense of ownership of their education (Deutsch, 1949; Thomas, 1957; Sharan and Tanner, 1979;
Herreid, 1998; Eisen, 1998; see Johnson et al., 1991 for a review of the extensive research on
cooperative/collaborative learning). I chose recombinant DNA technology rather than molecular
biology because a DNA technology course will be by its very nature interdisciplinary and
potentially more interesting and personally meaningful to students (Bicak and Bicak, 1990; PKAL,
8
1991), since they will learn advanced molecular biology in the context of how genetic engineering
can be used as a tool in basic and applied research. The course has already been approved by the
faculty, and will take a lecture/discussion format in the classroom very similar to that recently
described by Eisen (1998). Five years ago, I independently used a modification of his approach
when I taught a recombinant DNA technology class as Biology 363, Special Topics, without a
laboratory, and I have attached a copy of the relevant portion of the syllabus (although the format
will be modified to further emphasize group learning; Appendix V). To foster critical thinking and
group learning, the course used and will continue to use the approach of Craig Nelson (Nelson,
1989; 1994), who has adapted the collaborative/cooperative model to the sciences, and has
developed materials that guide students through the critical reading and discussion of scientific
articles. (See Appendix VI for Discussion Worksheet.) The students very well received the course,
and that class initiated my thinking on this proposal. Indeed, the cooperative approach is most
appropriate for fostering critical thinking in the sciences: In many subject areas, teaching facts and
theories is considered secondary to the development of students’ critical thinking and use of
higher-level reasoning. The aim of science education, for example, has been to develop
individuals who can sort sense from nonsense or who have the abilities involved in critical
thinking of grasping information, examining it, evaluating it for soundness, and applying it
appropriately. The application, evaluation, and synthesis of knowledge and other higher-level
reasoning skills, however, are often neglected in college classes. Cooperative learning promotes a
greater use of higher-level reasoning strategies and critical thinking than competitive or
individualistic learning strategies (Johnson et al., 1991). Briefly, my role will be to provide
essential background material for the topics covered. Groups of students will then present scientific
articles related to these topics, which they will choose on the basis of short review articles put on
9
reserve (“jump-start” articles, such as those found in the Research News section of Science, and the
News and Views section of Nature; Eisen, 1998), and lead a discussion of these articles. The
classroom groups will be the same as those in the laboratory (see below), and each group will make
two (or three) presentations during the semester. To ensure quality control, I will make sample
presentations, including appropriate visual aids. Each group will meet with me to present and
discuss its articles prior to making its presentations to the class. The presenting groups will use the
Discussion Worksheet in their meetings with me, and the rest of the class will use the Worksheet
during the group presentations. The presentations will be evaluated by the students in and out of
the groups and by me. (There is a separate worksheet for this activity, not included in the
proposal.) Currently, no course in the sciences follows such a format. This portion of the course
will address collaborative learning, discovery and creativity, teaching experiences, scholarship,
technology as a partner in teaching and research, and moral imagination -- much of the Expanded
Paradigm.
Since we introduced investigative classroom and laboratory projects into the introductory
biology courses, we have found, as have others (Wright, 1996; Ege, et al., 1997; Coppola et al.,
1997; Decker et al., 1998), that students’ interest, understanding, and expectations have risen. Now
they expect even more sophisticated experiments in upper level classes. This is a problem that I am
happy to have to solve. Thus, the laboratory will answer two questions that students always ask, or
at least always ask me: 1. How do you clone a gene? 2. And so then what do you do with it? The
answers I chose are not meant to be exhaustive, but instead, illustrative. The first question (How do
you clone a gene?) will be answered by random cDNA cloning -- the Birmingham Southern College
_____ (fill in the blank, can vary from year to year, e.g., Arabidopsis, corn, cat) Genome Project.
This project was very successful when I tried it as a trial run with Arabidopsis in Biology 402, Cell
10
Biology, in a laboratory project modified from Monroe and Knight (1995) based on Newman et al.
(1994). Students worked in groups of four, but each student pursued her/his own clone. I plated
out an aliquot of an Arabidopsis cDNA library, obtained from the Arabidopsis Biological Resource
Center. Students picked white recombinant colonies, screened them with PCR and universal
primers to determine the size of the insert, did plasmid preps, determined a portion of the insert
sequence, and used the resources of GenBank to identify the cDNA. Each group prepared a poster
presenting its research. I allowed seven weeks for this project, since I anticipated some difficulties
the first time through. Some students needed the entire seven weeks. In a couple of cases, students
had a little trouble getting sufficient plasmid for sequencing; however, more than half the class was
not able to get the sequencing reactions to work, even after three attempts. These clones were
sequenced by the DNA sequencing facility at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). All
eleven students obtained previously cloned cDNAs. Without question, the students responded
favorably to this project. (Appendix VII) One student stated: I enjoyed the lab because I felt as
though I was actually accomplishing something research-wise, and truly learning about it,
whereas in other labs I sometimes felt as though they were just lab exercises. (Underlining by
student.) The only negative response was the frustration of the students who were not able to
obtain the DNA sequences of their clones after repeated attempts. I have decide to solve this
problem by having all the cDNAs sequenced by the UAB sequencing facility, as we do in my
research laboratory. (See Equipment on Hand for the Project for the rationale underlying this
decision.) One can only imagine the response of a student finding a new cDNA.
For the random cDNA cloning project proposed in this grant, I anticipate the following
schedule: introduction (practice plasmid preparation and agarose gel) and selection of recombinant
clones (week 1), screening of recombinant clones by PCR (week 2), isolation of recombinant
11
plasmids and cycle sequencing of cDNA (week 3), analysis of sequences and identification of
cDNA clones (week 4), and extra time for completion of project or preparation of posters (week
5), which may be done outside of laboratory time. Posters will be displayed in the science building.
Sometimes, as done in Biology 402, class time will be used for short laboratory procedures, such as
inoculating cultures, PCR, etc. (See Appendix VIII for tentative schedule.) In fact, my desire is to
blur the distinction between the classroom and the laboratory.
The second question (And so then what do you do with it?) will be answered by having
students do (a) in vitro expression and (b) site-directed mutagenesis of cDNAs for two
cholinesterases, ChE1 and ChE2, that we have cloned from amphioxus, an organism that occupies a
pivotal position in the evolution of vertebrates. Jawed vertebrates have two ChEs,
acetylcholinesterase (AChE), which hydrolyzes the neurotransmitter acetylcholine at cholinergic
synapses, and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), whose function is unknown (Massoulié et al., 1993).
These two enzymes are the result of a gene duplication event in an ancestor of cartilaginous fish
(Sanders et al., 1996). The two ChEs in amphioxus are the result of a separate gene duplication.
ChE2 resembles the ChE of invertebrates, particularly in the region of the acyl-binding site, a region
of the active site that plays a large role in determining substrate specificity. ChE1 is a novel ChE,
with a unique acyl pocket sequence (Table 1; Sutherland et al., 1997).
Table 1. Amino acid sequences of acyl binding sites in ChE’s from vertebrates and invertebrates.
D.
B.
B.
T.
M.
melan. ChE
flor. ChE2
flor. ChE1
marm. AuChE
musc. BuChE
SVQQWNSYSGILS-----FPSAPTIDGAF
SDNEW-VVWGLCQ-----FPFAPIVDGNF
LDHEWNVVDLTGAHFLADIPFPPIKDGSF
IDVEWNVLPFDSI---FRFSFVPVIDGEF
LRNERFVLPSDSI---LSINFGPTVDGDF
Phenylalanine (F) residues implicated in the substrate binding specificity of the acyl pocket of cholinesterases are shown in bold
type. The sequences represented are D. melan. ChE, Drosophila melanogaster ChE (Hall and Spierer, 1986); B. flor. ChE2,
Branchiostoma floridae ChE2 (McClellan et al., 1998); ChE1, Branchiostoma floridae ChE1 (McClellan et al., 1998); T. marm.
AChE, Torpedo marmorata AChE (Sikorav, et al., 1987); M. musc. BuChE, Mus musculus BuChE (Rachinsky et al., 1990).
In the ChEs, aromatic amino acid residues in the acyl-binding site and in the peripheral anionic
site of the enzyme appear to be responsible for determining substrate and inhibitor specificity
12
(Massoulié et al., 1993; Taylor and Radic, 1994). In the vertebrates, two phenylalanines in the acyl
pocket of AChE appear to restrict the binding of bulky substrates and allow only acetylcholine to
be hydrolyzed. In contrast, nonaromatic replacement in BuChE allows a wider range of substrate
binding and hydrolysis. The presence of one phenylalanine in the acyl pocket of invertebrate ChE
was thought to account for the intermediate hydrolytic activity of the invertebrate enzyme.
However, ChE2 in amphioxus has only one phenylalanine, yet hydrolyzes only acetylcholine, raising
questions about this assumption. The molecular basis of substrate specificity in amphioxus ChE1,
which hydrolyzes multiple substrates, is not known.
Since we have already cloned and expressed wild-type and mutant ChE1 and ChE2 cDNAs in
COS-7 cells (Sutherland et al., 1997), the in vitro expression and site-directed mutagenesis portion
of the experiment, like the random cDNA cloning, has a high probability of success. Students will
isolate expression plasmids from bacteria (week 6), transfect the DNA for the two enzymes into
COS-7 cells, and collect and analyze kinetic or pharmacological data with the aid of SigmaPlot
(week 7). This portion of the project will introduce the students to the technique of in vitro
expression and the research question under study, preparing them for the next part of the project,
which will be the most investigative and challenging, site-directed mutagenesis. The students should
be ready for this challenge because of where they are in this course, and because of what they have
done in other courses. In the introductory cell and molecular biology course (Biology 125),
students isolate a plasmid from bacteria and identify it by restriction digestion and transformation of
bacteria for antibiotic resistance. Students also spend four weeks on the enzymology of βgalactosidase, determining Km and Vmax, and designing experiments to determine the effects of pH
and temperature. In genetics (Biology 301), students do PCR, bacterial transformation, genomic
DNA isolation, and Southern blotting.
13
With guidance, each group of four students will pick one appropriate mutation (during weeks 7
and 8; there are many possibilities, and more may be suggested by the results the students obtain).
They will perform site-directed mutagenesis without subcloning (week 8), perform plasmid preps
and screen transformants by DNA sequencing at the UAB facility (week 9), isolate mutant
expression vector DNA (week 10) and express the mutants in vitro, collecting and analyzing kinetic
or pharmacological data (week 11). We have started to use SwissModel to construct 3D computer
images of the two ChEs, and will use the modeling in mutant design. This project will integrate my
research and teaching as recommended by the Boyer Report (1998).
Students will be required to keep individual laboratory notebooks, to construct a group poster
for the cDNA cloning project, and to write a group paper in the form of a scientific research article
for the site-directed mutagenesis project. Notebooks, posters, and papers are required in many
biology courses. For papers, I typically require two drafts, the first serving as a research proposal,
where the students write the Introduction, Materials and Methods, and References Cited sections. I
mark, grade, and return them. After performing the experiments, the students write a complete
paper including the above, the Title, Abstract, Results, and Discussion.
These projects will complement the classroom portion of the course by providing a
collaborative/cooperative, research-rich, investigative laboratory experience for the students: not
only will they read, think, and talk science – they will do science, and gain additional experience
with collaborative learning, discovery and creativity, teaching experiences, scholarship, and
technology as a partner in teaching and research, tenets of the Expanded Paradigm.
Faculty Expertise. Leo Pezzementi, Professor of Biology, and Chair of the Division of Science and
Mathematics is the project director. I have taught courses in the area of cellular and molecular
biology for 16 years and have been an active researcher in the area for 20 years. I have tried to keep
14
up with the rapid developments in the field of cellular and molecular biology and to incorporate
them into my teaching and research with undergraduates. (See Biographical Sketch.)
Evaluation. The primary purpose of our evaluation is to collect evidence that this course plays a
significant role in stimulating scientific interest and activity among our students. Resources will not
permit a full-scale experiment with controls; such an experiment would in any event be intrusive
and impractical. We will attempt within these limitations to provide the best evidence feasible for
increased interest and expertise among course participants.
Formative evaluation will establish if the course is meeting goals consistent with the principles of
the Expanded Paradigm. This phase of the evaluation will be based on the following data, collected
primarily to assess the success of the course in increasing student interest:
1. Enrollment and attendance figures. These figures should indicate consistent or increasing
interest in the course. Biology enrollment figures from past years, and from similar colleges in
the region, will serve as standards of comparison.
2. Records of special student accomplishments in science: these accomplishments may include
awards, community programs, conference presentations, or publications. Not all students can be
expected to distinguish themselves in these areas, but our objective is that several each year
should do so.
3. Student evaluations. Students will provide quantitative ratings for various facets of the course:
content, instruction, and interest. Open-ended commentary will also be solicited.
Our summative evaluation will seek evidence that our students have shown at least as much
academic and intellectual progress as can realistically be measured at the end of one course.
Evidence for course impact on knowledge will include results of anonymously-coded standardized
tests and in-house exams (where the latter are given pre- and post-program so that change may be
15
assessed). Data will also include ratings for scientific and “publication” quality awarded to student
course papers by judges recruited from local college faculty in biology. We stress, however, that
our academic philosophy is based primarily on stimulating scientific interest and reasoning, and only
secondarily on the quick acquisition of facts; therefore, some of the most anticipated effects -- more
career-choices in science, for example -- will not occur until well after the course is complete. Even
the acquisition of knowledge itself is a long-term process. Therefore our summative evaluation will
necessarily have a strong formative element insofar as its primary purpose will be to provide
guidance for the continued improvement of the program.
We consider the evaluation outlined above to be the first step of an assessment program to be
continued even after the current funding period has ended. Therefore, all data collected for this
evaluation will be stored for comparative use in future course evaluations.
The evaluation will be done in collaboration with Dr. Larry Fish, School of Public Health,
University of Alabama at Birmingham. (See Biographical Sketch.)
Dissemination. The results of this project will be disseminated in various ways. I anticipate
presenting all or parts of the project at a national meeting such as the Annual Meeting of the
Society for Neuroscience, which I often attend and which has sessions set aside for educational
projects. I think it might be more important to present the results regionally, at an Alabama
Academy of Sciences Meeting, to alert faculty who might not attend national meetings to what is
possible in the teaching laboratory. I will make available copies of my grant and laboratory
handouts to the scientific community. I maintain a web site and will integrate this project into my
homepage to disseminate it electronically. I will also submit the project to a journal, such as the
Journal of College Science Teaching, American Biology Teacher, or BioScience.
16
Equipment Request. Forma Model 1104 Biological Safety Cabinet. Currently, we have one Forma
1104 biological safety cabinet, which was purchased under an NSF-CSIP grant in 1988. Since then,
interest in cellular and molecular biology has increased. There may be 16 students in the upper-level
cell course and the hood gets quite crowded, limiting the types of experiments possible. An
additional hood is needed for the cell culture in this project.
Bio-Tek ELx808 Microtitre Plate Reader, Computer, and Windows Data Capture Software. At the
present time, in our research laboratory, we are conducting our ChE enzyme assays in microtiter
plates and monitoring the reaction with a computer-interfaced Bio-Tek EL311 plate reader (Doctor
et al., 1987). This technique allows us to perform up to 96 measurements simultaneously, greatly
simplifying and accelerating the collection of data for Michaelis-Menten kinetics, dose-response
curves, and other experiments based on accurate determination of enzyme activity under different
conditions. We use this assay in the teaching laboratory to determine ChE activity levels in extracts
of cultured muscle, but access to the instrument has been a problem. Each assay takes 5-10
minutes, depending on the amount of ChE activity. With one instrument and four laboratory teams,
a group may have to wait 30 minutes to perform an assay. However, the addition of just one plate
reader would cut the wait to 10 minutes at the longest, which is quite reasonable, and will allow us
to perform more interesting detailed kinetic and pharmacological assays rather than the single
activity measurements to which we are currently limited. The real time graphical display of the
progress of the reaction increases students’ understanding of how reaction rate is determined.
SigmaPlot 5.0. SigmaPlot is a very powerful graphics program that I have used in my research for a
number of years to fit and graph kinetic, pharmacological, and a wide variety of other data.
Four 12-Channel Finnpipettes. The 12-channel Finnpipettes are needed for the microtitre plate
ChE assay to ensure that all reactions in an assay set begin simultaneously.
17
Equipment on Hand for the Project. I am not requesting an automated DNA sequencer for
analysis of fluorescent cycle sequence reactions since I cannot justify the cost of this instrument
given the limited amount of use it would receive. Instead, I will send the clones to UAB to be
sequenced, as we do in my research laboratory. This approach was successful for all students last
year. I do have reservations about the students not performing their own sequencing, but think that
their exposure to other techniques in the course more than compensates for this omission.
I am not requesting a thermal cycler, since in the past using my research cycler in both teaching
and research has not been a problem. We have two refrigerated high-speed centrifuges for the midipreps for in vitro expression, two controlled atmosphere incubators to culture the COS-7 cells, and
a UV/VIS spectrophotometer (in chemistry) for the quantification of DNA used in the transfection
experiments. Other smaller items of equipment needed for the projects are available. (See Appendix
IX for equipment available.)
Implementation and Equipment Maintenance. I will first offer the course in the Spring semseter
of 2000. During August 1999, I will develop the necessary teaching materials for the lecture and
the laboratory portions of the course, as well as working on evaluation with Dr. Fish. Since
undergraduate students routinely use these techniques in my research laboratory, I do not anticipate
any major problems in implementing the laboratory portion of the course. I have estimated a supply
budget of $3,000 for this course, which the College has agreed to provide.
The equipment items requested are reliable and will not require service contracts. The current
repair budget for the department is $4,000/year. Also, the laboratory coordinator for the biology
and chemistry departments is responsible for the routine maintenance of laboratory equipment.
18
Besides being used in the Recombinant DNA course, the equipment requested would be used in
Biology 402 (Cell Biology), Winter term (1-month project courses), and undergraduate research
projects on an annual basis, and in Biology 412 (Immunology) every other year.
Results from Prior NSF Support. From May 1994-April 1998 I had the grant RUI: Evolution of
Cholinesterase In Vivo and In Vitro, IBN-9319354, funded at $111,684. Since an important
component of RUI grants is undergraduate science education, and an important component of this
CCLI-A&I proposal is the integration of this research into the teaching and learning process of
undergraduates, as recommended by the Boyer Report (1998), I have included information
concerning the project. A brief description of the relevant major findings of this research was given
in the Project Description. Four publications with undergraduate co-authors resulted and are listed
in the Biographical Sketch section, along with three abstracts that I presented. Additionally, the
following abstracts resulted with undergraduate authors* and presenters:
W. B. Coblentz,* S. Merritt,* G. Rulewicz,* J. S. McClellan,* M. Sapp,* D. I. Gaines,* A.
Hawkins,* C. Ozment,* A. Bearden,* J. Cunningham,* E. Palmer,* A. Contractor,* and L.
Pezzementi. 1998. cDNA cloning, in vitro expression, and biochemical characterization of
cholinesterase 1 and cholinesterase 2 from amphioxus. Sixth Intl. Meet. on Cholinesterases:
Program and Abstracts, A5.
J. S. McClellan,* M. Sapp,* A. Hawkins,* and J. Cunningham.* 1997. Amphioxus possesses two
cholinesterases: cDNA sequencing and biochemical analysis. Eleventh Natl. Conf.
Undergrad. Res. 0125.
S. McClellan,* I. Gaines,* N. Axon,* D. Sutherland,* and M. Sanders.* 1996. Molecular analysis
of cholinesterase in amphioxus. Tenth Natl. Conf. Undergrad. Res. 282.
B. Mathews,* M. Sanders,* W. Soong,* D. Sutherland,* and H. Giles.* 1996. Characterization of
acetylcholinesterase from the hagfish. Tenth Natl. Conf. Undergrad. Res. 280.
D. Milner* and R. Jotani.* 1995. Characterization of AChE from Styela plicata. S. E. Region.
Mtg. βββ.
βββ
19
References Cited.
Bicak, C.J. and L.J. Bicak. (1990) Connections across the disciplines. JCST, May 1990, 336-346.
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998)
Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America’s research universities.
http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf. SUNY at Stony Brook: Stony Brook, NY.
Coppola, B.P., S.N. Ege and R.G. Lawton. (1997) The University of Michigan undergraduate
chemistry curriculum 2. Instructional strategies and assessment. J. Chem. Ed. 74, 84-94.
Council on Undergraduate Research. 1990-1997. CUR Newsletter and CUR Quarterly 11-18.
Decker, A.A., L.P. Nestor and D. DiLullo. (1998) An example of a guided-inquiry, collaborative
physical chemistry laboratory course. J. Chem. Ed. 75, 860-863.
Deutsch M. (1949) An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon
group process. Human Relations 2, 199-231.
Doctor, B.P., L. Toker, E. Roth and I. Silman. (1987) Microtiter assay for acetylcholinesterase.
Analyt. Biochem., 166: 399-403.
Ege, S.H., B.P. Coppola and R.G. Lawton. (1997) The University of Michigan undergraduate
chemistry curriculum 1. Philosophy, curriculum, and the nature of change. J. Chem. Ed. 74,
74-83.
Eisen, A. (1998) Small-group presentations – teaching “science thinking” and context in a large
biology class. BioScience 48, 53-58.
Hall, L.M.C. and P. Spierer. (1986) The Ace locus of Drosophila melanogaster: structural gene for
acetylcholinesterase with an unusual 5’ leader. EMBO J., 5: 2949-2954.
Herreid, C.F. (1998) Why isn’t cooperative learning used to teach science? BioScience 48, 553559.
Johnson D.W., Johnson R.T. and K.A. Smith (1991) Cooperative learning: increasing college
faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. The George
Wahsington University, School of Education and Human Development: Washington, D.C.
Massoulié, J., L. Pezzementi, S. Bon, E. Krejci and F. Vallette. (1993) Molecular and cellular
biology of cholinesterases. Prog Neurobiol. 41, 31-91.
Monroe, J.D. and I.T. Knight. (1995) Students discover new genes in an investigative
undergraduate molecular biology course. CUR Quarterly 16, 109-114.
20
McClellan, J.S., M. Sapp, J. Cunningham, W. B. Coblentz, A. Bearden, G. Rulewicz, D. I. Gaines,
A. Hawkins, C. Ozment, and L. Pezzementi (1998) Cloning and expression of cDNAs for
cholinesterase 1 and cholinesterase 2: biochemical characterization of the enzymes produced in
vivo and in vitro. Eur. J. Biochem., in press.
National Science Foundation. (1996) Shaping the future: new expectations for undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. NSF: Arlington, VA.
National Science Foundation (1998) Use-friendly handbook for project evaluation. NSF: Arlington,
VA.
National Research Council. (1996) From analysis to action: undergraduate education in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. (1997) Science teaching reconsidered: a handbook. National Academy
Press: Washington, D.C.
Nelson, C. (1989) Skewered on the unicorn's horn: the illusion of a tragic tradeoff between content
and critical thinking in the teaching of science. In L. Crowe, Ed.: Enhancing Critical Thinking
in the Sciences, Society of College Science Teachers.
Nelson, C. (1994) Collaborative learning and critical thinking. In: K. Bosworth and S. Hamilton,
Eds.: Collaborative Learning and College Teaching , Jossey-Bass.
Newman, T., F.J. de Bruijn, P. Green, K. Keegstra, H. Kende, L. McIntosh, J. Ohlrogge, N.
Raikhel, S. Somerville, M. Thomashow, E. Retzel and C. Somerville. (1994) Genes galore: a
summary of methods for accessing results from large-scale partial sequencing of anonymous
Arabidopsis cDNA clones. Plant Physiology 106, 1241-1255.
Pew Higher Education Roundtable and Knight Collaborative. (1998) Policy perspectives sponsored
by the Pew science program in undergraduate education. University of Pennsylvania, Phila.
PA.
Project Kaleidoscope. (1991) What works: building natural science communities. Volume One.
Rachinsky, T.L., S. Camp, Y. Li, T.J. Ekstrom, M. Newton and P. Taylor. (1990) Molecular
cloning of mouse acetylcholinesterase: tissue distribution of alternatively spliced mRNA
species. Neuron, 5: 317-327.
Sanders M., B. Mathews, D. Sutherland, W. Soong, H. Giles, and L. Pezzementi. (1996)
Biochemical and molecular characterization of acetylcholinesterase from the hagfish Myxine
glutinosa. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 115B, 97-109.
Sharan S. and A.M. Tanner. (1979) Effects of cooperative reward structures and individual
accountability on productivity and learning. Journal of Educational Research 72, 294-298.
21
Sikorav, J.L., E. Krejci and J. Massoulié. (1987) cDNA sequences of Torpedo marmorata
acetylcholinesterase: primary structure of the precursor of a catalytic subunit; existence of
multiple 5’-untranslated regions. EMBO J., 7: 2983-2993.
Sutherland D., J.S. McClellan, D. Milner, W. Soong, N. Axon, M. Sanders, A. Hester, Y.-H. Kao,
T. Poczatek, S. Routt and L. Pezzementi. (1997) Two cholinesterase activities and genes are
present in amphioxus. J. Exptl. Zool. 277, 213-229.
Taylor P. and Z. Radic. (1994) The cholinesterases: from genes to proteins.
Pharmacol. Toxicol. 34, 281-320.
Annu. Rev.
Thomas E.J. (1957) Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human
Relations 10, 347-366.
Wright, J.C. (1996) Authentic learning environment in analytical chemistry using cooperative
methods and open-ended laboratories in large lecture courses. J. Chem. Ed. 73, 827-832.
22
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH for LEO PEZZEMENTI.
EDUCATION
Ph.D., 1982: SUNY at Stony Brook, Molecular Biology Program and Pharmacological Sciences Program.
Department of Biochemistry. Laboratory of Jakob Schmidt.
B.A., 1975:
La Salle College, Philadelphia, PA. Biology major.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ecole Normale Supérieure, Laboratoire de Neurobiologie, Paris, France. Invited professor (June 1992-August
1992). Sabbatical year (July 1990-July 1991). Laboratory of Dr. Jean Massoulié.
Case-Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH. Visiting Scientist (June 1988-August
1988). Laboratory of Dr. Terrone Rosenberry, Department of Pharmacology.
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL. Chair, Division of Science and Mathematics (1997-),
Professor of Biology (1996-), Associate Professor of Biology (1988-1996), Assist. Prof. of Biol. (1985-1988).
Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH. Visiting Assistant Professor of Biology and Chemistry (1983-1985).
Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, PA. Visiting Assistant Professor of Biology (1982-1983).
SELECTED CAMPUS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Biology Councilor, Council on Undergraduate Research (1989-1992), member (1988-), editor of Research in
Biology at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (1993-1994), CUR Liaison (1995-1998).
Chair, General Education Committee (1997-1998) Developed Expanding the Paradigm of General Education.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (Includes those resulting from and citing NSF support. Undergraduates*.)
James Scott McClellan,* Mathew Sapp,* John Cunningham,* William Blake Coblentz,* Amy Bearden,* Gabe
Rulewicz,* David Isaac Gaines,* Ashley Hawkins,* Carrie Ozment,* and Leo Pezzementi. 1998. Cloning
and expression of cDNAs for cholinesterase 1 and cholinesterase 2: biochemical characterization of the
enzymes produced in vivo and in vitro. Eur. J. Biochem., in press.
Leo Pezzementi, David Sutherland,* Michael Sanders,* Weily Soong,* Daniel Milner,* James Scott
McClellan,* Mathew Sapp,* William Blake Coblentz,* Gabriel Rulewicz,* and Sarah Merritt.* 1998.
Structure and function of cholinesterases from agnathans and cephalochordates: implications for the
evolution of cholinesterases. In Cholinesterase Structure and Function, ACS, Wash., D.C., in press.
David Sutherland,* James Scott McClellan,* Daniel Milner,* Weily Soong,* Neal Axon,* Michael Sanders,*
Alison Hester,* Yu-Hsing Kao,* Ted Poczatek,* Sheri Routt,* and Leo Pezzementi. 1997. Two
cholinesterase activities and genes are present in amphioxus. J. Exptl. Zool., 277, 213-229.
Michael Sanders,* Bonnie Mathews,* David Sutherland,* Weily Soong,* Harry Giles,* and Leo Pezzementi.
1996. Biochemical and molecular characterization of acetylcholinesterase from the hagfish Myxine
glutinosa. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 115B, 97-109.
Leo Pezzementi. 1994. Research in Biology at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions. Council on
Undergraduate Research, Collegiate Research Association of Biologists: Asheville, NC, 344 pp.
23
Christopher Atkins* and Leo Pezzementi. 1993. Developmental changes in the molecular forms of
acetylcholinesterase during the life cycle of the lamprey. Comparative Biochem. Physiol. 106B, 369-372.
Jean Massoulié, Leo Pezzementi, Suzanne Bon, Eric Krejci, and François-Marie Vallette. 1993. Molecular and
cellular biology of cholinesterases. Progress in Neurobiology 41, 31-91.
Leo Pezzementi. 1990. NIH AREA Program from the perspective of undergraduate research. Council on
Undergraduate Research Newsletter 11, 57-60.
Leo Pezzementi, David Sutherland,* Michael Sanders,* Weily Soong,* Daniel Milner,* James Scott
McClellan,* Mathew Sapp,* William Blake Coblentz,* Gabriel Rulewicz,* and Sarah Merritt.* 1998.
Structure and function of cholinesterases from agnathans and cephalochordates: implications for the
evolution of the cholinesterases. Sixth Intl. Meet. Cholinesterases: Program and Abstracts, 5.
Leo Pezzementi, David Sutherland,* Michael Sanders,* Weily Soong,* Daniel Milner,* James Scott
McClellan,* Mathew Sapp,* William Blake Coblentz,* Gabriel Rulewicz,* and Sarah Merritt.* 1998.
Pharmacological and molecular analysis of cholinesterases from agnathans and cephalochordates:
implications for the evolution of resistance to cholinesterase inhibitors. Sixth Intl. Meet. Cholinesterases:
Program and Abstracts, 17.
Leo. Pezzementi, R. Jotani,* B. Mathews,* D. Milner,* and W. Soong.* 1995. Is
butyrylcholinesterase present in primitive chordates? Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 20, 839.4.
COLLABORATORS
I anticipate writing a collaborative NSF-CNRS grant with Dr. Jean Massoulié, Ecole Normale Supérieure,
Paris, France and Dr. Jean-Pierre Toutant, INRA, Montpellier, France.
THESIS ADVISOR
Jakob Schmidt, Dept. of Biochemistry, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY.
GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDENTS
I have supervised only undergraduates. Listed are those who worked with me in the past five (six*) years.
Michael Sanders* M.D. Program, U. of S. Alabama, HHMI-NIH Research Scholar, NSF Japan-Korea Fellow
Weily Soong
M.D. Program, University of Alabama, HHMI-NIH Research Scholar
David Sutherland* MSTP Program, Stanford U.
J. Scott McClellan MSTP Program, Washington U.
Bonnie Mathews M.D. Program, U. of S. Alabama Carrie Ozment
D.V.M., Auburn U.
Daniel Milner
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
John Cunningham Teach for America
Harry Giles
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Yu-Hsing Kao
D.M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
D. Isaac Gaines M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Ted Poczatek
D.M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Neal Axon
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Mathew Sapp
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Rick Jotani
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Alison Hester
Unknown
Ashley HawkinsM.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Blake Coblentz
Research Assistant, Neurobiology, UAB
Sheri Routt
Ph.D. Program, Molec., UAB
Gabe Rulewicz
M.D. Program, U. of Mississippi
Amir Contractor Engineering major, UAH
Amy Bearden
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Harry Giles
M.D. Program, U. of Alabama
Gaurav Khatri
Junior computer science major
Geoffrey Chew Sophomore biology major
Chris McCoy
Junior biology major
NSF Form 1362 (7/95)
24
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH for LARRY FISH.
Larry Fish
University of Alabama
SOPH/Department of Health Behavior
227 Ryals Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0022
(205) 934-6020
[email protected]
EDUCATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
Carleton College, Northfield, Minn. Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics and Education, 1975.
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Undergraduate Development Certificate, Computer Science, 1982.
University of New Orleans, La. Master of Arts in Educational Administration, Emphasis in Research, Statistics and
Education, 1986.
University of California, Los Angeles. Graduate School of Education. Doctor of Philosophy in Social Research Methods,
June, 1995.
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT
1. Research and Evaluation
University of Alabama at Birmingham
School of Public Health, Health Behavior Dept. 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35294. 8/96 - present. Post-Doctoral
Fellow. Responsible primarily for design and data analysis in behavioral research projects. Other activities have included several
lectures and two quarter-length seminars on statistical applications.
National Council of La Raza: Project EXCEL
Los Angeles Program Office, 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA, 90017; 9/90 - 3/94. Data Specialist for the
evaluation of educational initiatives implemented in about 25 sites across the country. Responsible for design of data collection
instruments, entry and management of data, data analysis, and report writing. Some grant-writing and staff-training responsibilities.
2. Teaching, Secondary-Level Mathematics
Several secondary schools, in Honduras (8/82-7/84); United States (Minnesota, 8/81-6/82); Sierra Leone (1/78-12/79); and
Swaziland (9/75-12/77).
3. Graduate Student Employment
UCLA, Graduate School of Education, Division of Social Research Methods. 9/87 - 8/90 and 4/94 - 1/96. Programming, data
management and analysis, and report writing for several evaluation and research projects. Consultation in research methods and
data analysis, primarily for doctoral students, with occasional lectures on statistical topics.
Orleans Parish Schools, Department of Research and Evaluation, New Orleans, La. Evaluation intern (1986).
25
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Publications and Reports
L. Fish, L.C. Leviton. Program evaluation. In J.M. Raczynski and R.J. DiClemente, eds. Handbook of Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention, in press. New York: Plenum Press.
L.C. Leviton, R.L. Goldenberg, C.S. Baker, M.C. Freda, R.M. Schwartz, L. Fish., et al. Consensus conferences can affect practice:
Randomized controlled trial of methods to encourage the use of antenatal corticosteroid therapy for fetal maturation. Accepted for
publication by Journal of the American Medical Association.
L. Fish. Book review: New Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences by Rand Wilcox. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Autumn, 1989.
L. Fish. Why multivariate statistics are usually vital. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, October,
1988.
L. Fish. The importance of invariance procedures as against tests of statistical significance. 1986; ERIC document no. ED 278
707.
2. Presentations
D. Coombs, E. Chess, L. Fish, et al.. Application of the transtheoretical model of change to suicidal behavior. Paper presented at
the annual conference of the American Association of Suicidology , Bethesda, MD, April, 1998.
L. Fish. How evaluators perceive evaluation misuse. Paper presented at the joint conference of the American Evaluation
Association and the Canadian Evaluation Society, Vancouver B.C., November, 1995.
L. Fish. The Matrix Calculator: An educational computer program for students of statistics. Paper and computer software
presented an the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association, Boston, November, 1994.
L. Fish. A critique of parametric hypothesis testing in educational research and evaluation. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, November, 1993.
L. Fish. A critique of statistical significance testing in educational research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
California Educational Research Association, San Diego, Nov., 1991.
L. Fish. On the use of statistical methods in educational research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the California
Educational Research Association, Santa Barbara, Nov., 1990.
L. Fish. On the use of factor analysis in program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation
Association, San Francisco, Oct., 1989.
NSF Form 1362 (7/95)
26
SUMMARY
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
Birmingham-Southern College
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Leo Pezzementi
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. Show number in brackets)
Granted
AWARD NO.
NSF-Funded
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1
1. Leo Pezzementi
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POST DOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (
) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (
) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (1) OTHER (Evaluation Consultant)
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) FICA
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Forma Model 1104 Biological Safety Cabinet, $8,980
Bio-Tek Elx808 Microtitre Plate Reader, Computer, and Software, $12,700
12-Channel Finnpipettes (4) $2,210
SigmaPlot 5.0, $5,200
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS
$
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
(
) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR EVALUATION OF PROJECT
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Funds
Requested
By
Proposer
$6,396
Funds
Granted by
NSF
(If Different)
$
$6,396
$480
$6,876
$29,090
$4,800
$4,800
$40,766
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
0
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
$40,766
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$40,766
M. COST-SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $20,383
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
Leo Pezzementi
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
Date Checked
Date of Rate
Sheet
Initials-ORG
Neal Berte, President
NSF Form 1030 (10/97) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.B)
27
FIRST YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
Birmingham-Southern College
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Granted
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. Show number in brackets)
NSF-Funded
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
1
1. Leo Pezzementi
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POST DOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (
) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (
) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (1) OTHER (Evaluation Consultant)
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) FICA
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
Forma Model 1104 Biological Safety Cabinet, $8,980
Bio-Tek Elx808 Microtitre Plate Reader, Computer, and Software, $12,700
12-Channel Finnpipettes (4) $2,210
SigmaPlot 5.0, $5,200
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS
$
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
(
) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR EVALUATION OF PROJECT
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
Funds
Requested
By
Proposer
$6,396
Funds
Granted by
NSF
(If Different)
$
$6,396
$480
$6,876
$29,090
$2,400
$2,400
$38,816
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
0
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
$38,816
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$38,816
M. COST-SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $19,408
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
Leo Pezzementi
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
Date Checked
Date of Rate
Sheet
Initials-ORG
Neal Berte, President
NSF Form 1030 (10/97) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.B)
28
SECOND YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
Birmingham-Southern College
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (MONTHS)
Proposed
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Leo Pezzementi
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. Show number in brackets)
Granted
AWARD NO.
NSF-Funded
Person-months
CAL ACAD SUMR
Funds
Requested
By
Proposer
Funds
Granted by
NSF
(If Different)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. (
) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)
7. (
) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. (
) POST DOCTORAL ASSOCIATES
2. (
) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
3. (
) GRADUATE STUDENTS
4. (
) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
5. (
) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
6. (1) OTHER (Evaluation Consultant)
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) FICA
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
E. TRAVEL
1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)
2. FOREIGN
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS
$
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE
4. OTHER
(
) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR EVALUATION OF PROJECT
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
5. SUBAWARDS
6. OTHER
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
$2,400
$2,400
$2,400
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
0
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
$2,400
K. RESIDUAL FUNDS (IF FOR FURTHER SUPPORT OF CURRENT PROJECT SEE GPG II.D.7.j.)
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
$2,400
M. COST-SHARING: PROPOSED LEVEL $1,200
AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT: $
PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*
DATE
FOR NSF USE ONLY
Leo Pezzementi
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*
DATE
Date Checked
Date of Rate
Sheet
Initials-ORG
Neal Berte, President
NSF Form 1030 (10/97) Supersedes All Previous Editions
*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED BUDGET (GPG III.B)
29
Budget Justification
Equipment.
Bio-Tek ELx808 Microtitre Plate Reader, Computer, and Windows Data Capture Software. At
the present time, we are using a computer-interfaced Bio-Tek EL311 plate reader. The reader and
the software have been very reliable, and I think that it would be a good idea to have a similar
instrument. The list price for the instrument, computer, and software is $13,560. With a discount,
the price is $12,700.
Forma Model 1104 Biological Safety Cabinet. Currently, we have one Forma 1104 biological
safety cabinet, which was purchased under an NSF-CSIP grant. This hood has been very reliable
and another of the same kind would make servicing and maintenance more efficient. I was not
able to obtain a discount. The price is $8,980.
12-Channel Finnpipettes. We currently use my two research multi-channel Finnpipettes in the
teaching laboratory, and I have been very satisfied with their performance. The list price of each
12-channel pipette is $690 (4@$2,760). Discounted the price is $552 (4@$2,208).
SigmaPlot 5.0. I have used SigmaPlot for a number of years to fit and graph kinetic,
pharmacological, and other data. The Windows version is much more user-friendly than the DOS
version. Currently, most of our science students are using Microsoft Excel for graphical analysis.
This program is not designed for scientific applications. It is worth noting that SigmaPlot 5.0 is
compatible with Excel spreadsheets. I am asking for twenty permanent site licenses to equip a
computer laboratory. I expect that students in other upper-level science courses will use this
software. The cost of a twenty-site license is $5,200.
30
Summer salary.
I am requesting one month’s summer salary and fringe benefits ($6,875) primarily for the revision
of course materials, for the preparation of a complete laboratory manual for the course, and for
the initial development of evaluation materials with Dr. Larry Fish.
Evaluation Consultants.
Dr. Larry Fish, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health, Health Behavior
Department will be the evaluation consultant on this project. His salary is $2,200/year, $4,400
total, for the evaluation of the project, which is based on the equivalent of one day per month,
plus an additional two weeks, for a total of 22 days per year at $100 per day. Additionally, judges
recruited from local college faculty in biology, most likely the University of Alabama at
Birmingham, for the rating of the scientific and “publication” quality of the student course papers
will be paid $200/year, $400 total; 4 group papers each year @ 2 hours/paper.
Indirect Costs.
The College does not currently have a negotiated indirect cost rate with the federal government,
and I am not asking for any indirect costs.
Request from NSF.
The total budget for the project is $40,766. The College will proved $20,383, a 50% match.
31
6. Current and Pending Support
See GPG Section II.D.8 for guidance on information to include on this form.)
The following information should be provided for each investigator and other senior personnel. Failure to provide this information may delay consideration of this proposal.
Other agencies (including NSF) to which this proposal has been/will be submitted.
Investigator: Leo Pezzementi
Support:
Current
None
[x] Submission Planned in Near Future
Pending
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
RUI: Structure and function of cholinesterase from amphioxus
Source of Support: NSF-RUI: Division
Total Award Amount: $90,000 estimated
of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience
Total Award Period Covered: June 1999-May 2002
Birmingham-Southern College
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
[ ] Pending
Cal:
4.5
Acad: 2.5
[ ] Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
2
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount:
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Support:
Current
Pending
Cal:
Acad:
Submission Planned in Near Future
Sumr:
*Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $
Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person-Months Per Year Committed to the Project.
Cal:
Acad:
Sumr:
*If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for immediately preceding funding period.
NSF Form 1239 (7/95)
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY
32
APPENDIX I.
Data on graduates in the sciences from Birmingham-Southern College.
Table 1. Number of Graduating Majors by Year.
Year
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
28
27
21
31
34
Biology
11
10
14
9
13
Bio.-Psy.a
b
Chemistry
2
4
9
8
3
1998
26
16
7
a
Biology-Psychology interdisciplinary major.
Many chemistry majors take upper-level cell and molecular biology courses
as part of the Biological Chemistry track of the Chemistry major.
b
Table 2. Number of Students Admitted to Professional Schools
Year
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
25
23
22
22
27
30
Medical
5
2
2
6
2
6
Dental
Phys. Ther.
0
1
0
1
4
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
Optometry
0
0
2
2
3
4
Nursing
0
0
1
0
1
1
Veterinary
30
27
27
31
37
43
Total
1998
27
10
2
1
2
1
43
Table 3. Baccalaureate-origin institutions of doctorate recipients, from 1920-1995.
Date of Doctorate
Chemistry
Biochemistry
Other Biol. Sci.
Total Biol. Sci.
53
7
69
9
47
16
1920-1995
7
2
1985-1995
Data are from the National Academy of Sciences.
Table 4. Average Scores of Senior Biology Majors on the Biology Major Field Achievement Test.
Year
Percentile
90-91
60
91-92
65
92-93
21
93-94
61
94-95
77
95-96
87
96-97
95
97-98
87
Table 5. Estimated Numbers of Students Involved in Undergraduate Research.
1992-993
1993-1994 1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
Year
4
7
17
24
39
28
Biology*
2
3
7
12
11
8
Chemistry
0
0
0
4
7
2
Physics
0
0
0
7
4
4
Mathematics
0
0
0
7
2
14
Comp.Sci.
6
10
24
54
63
60
Total
33
APPENDIX II. SCIENCE MISSION STATEMENT - DRAFT
The mission of the natural sciences at Birmingham-Southern College is to promote scientific understanding,
emphasizing the content, process, and interdisciplinary nature of science, to develop critical thinking skills, to
enhance verbal and written communication abilities, to encourage reasoned debate on scientific issues, and to
promote civic responsibility. The natural sciences will meet this challenge by providing a vital, collaborative
learning community of students, faculty, and staff based on investigative field- and laboratory-intensive curricula.
In this active, collaborative learning environment, students will have opportunities to develop these qualities via
hands-on experimentation, undergraduate research, one-on-one interactions with faculty, group interactions with
other students, and outreach activities to local institutions. Graduates in the natural sciences will have the
scientific foundation necessary to be competitive in the 21st Century, whether in the job force, or in quality
graduate and professional programs. Both majors and nonmajors will have the skills to make informed decisions
on increasingly complex, technological issues affecting their communities.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - DRAFT
1.
Provide interactive group learning opportunities in lecture and laboratory, blurring the distinction between
lecture and laboratory, particularly in upper-level courses, and awarding credit for both experiences. This goal
will require classroom spaces that will allow and encourage group learning, and laboratory spaces that will
allow experimentation and discussion. Spaces will also be needed to promote the informal interaction of
students with students and with faculty.
2.
Expect that each science laboratory course contain some investigative, research-type laboratories, in which
students design, perform, interpret, and present experiments. This type of hands-on, personal learning is an
effective way to teach science, since students have a sense of ownership of their education. Encourage the
incorporation of independent student projects and faculty research projects in each course beginning at the
introductory level and increasing in complexity and importance through the upper level courses.
3.
Institute a strong scientific writing component in each science major, preferably in each course, emphasizing
both technical and non-technical styles of writing to link communication skills and course work. Likewise,
provide opportunities for oral presentations. Communication of ones findings is a very important component of
the scientific process.
4.
Ensure that all students should have a capstone scholarly experience, whether it be the scholarship of
discovery, which encompasses most traditional research; the scholarship of integration, which approaches
interdisciplinary questions with the same rigor; the scholarship of application, which applies knowledge and
theory to the problems of the world; or the scholarship of teaching, which is central to the mission of the
College as a liberal arts institution.
5.
Provide opportunities for collaborative research between faculty and students that lead to presentations and
publications, both on and off campus. This goal will require the student-faculty research laboratories located
near to faculty offices.
6.
Provide opportunities for internships with, with professionals in health-care, industry, and academia, and in
area schools and science education organizations.
7.
Broaden opportunities, responsibilities, and rewards for students teaching students – whether as full-fledged
teaching assistants (as currently done in BI 115), in tutoring programs, in review sessions, or in student-run
interim classes conducted as part of the scholarship of teaching.
8.
Expect each graduating science major to give at least one science-based presentation outside the classroom to
the faculty and/or the college community as part of their capstone experience. These presentations could be at
Honors Day or at a newly instituted Science Afternoon, which could be a part of the ‘Southern Science
Symposium.
9.
Create a summer undergraduate research program. Such a program is crucial to the development of a true
learning community in the sciences. Establish an endowment for this program and for undergraduate research
during the school year. The endowment should provide for student and faculty stipends, and for research
supplies and travel.
34
10. Enhance the activities of and the involvement in current student science organizations, and promote the
development of new science student organizations, if necessary. These organizations should promote
undergraduate research, on- and off-campus speakers, and outreach activities.
11. Continue to develop new courses, majors, minors, and inter/multidisciplinary programs and revise existing
ones to link the sciences to other areas of study both inside and outside the Division. Interdisciplinary
programs currently under consideration are Environmental Studies, Neuroscience, and Biophysics. These
programs will extend the connections amongst the science disciplines on the campus, and expand them outside
the sciences.
12. Develop a two-term science general education requirement that is laboratory based. Ensure that the courses
used to satisfy this requirement adhere to the tenets of the Mission Statement and the Academic Plan, the
General Education Statement for the sciences, and the goals of the Expanded Paradigm. Most likely, this goal
will not be pursued only on the campus of Birmingham-Southern College, but cooperatively on all the
campuses of the Associated Colleges of the South (ACS).
13. Maintain or reduce 12:1 student faculty ratio. If enrollment increases from 1150 to 1400 (20% increase) and if
the new facility increases enrollment the additional 25% in the sciences, at least 5 new faculty will be needed
in the sciences in order to maintain the 12-hour/4-course teaching load. Since many of the activities listed in
the academic plan will require additional faculty time, a revision of the way that teaching load is determined
in the sciences may have to be considered. Additional programs would require additional staffing. These
contingencies have been taken into account in the planning of the new science facility.
14. Limit introductory class size to 60 students and laboratory size to 20 students to maximize faculty-student
interaction and to allow multiple types of learning. Decrease the size of large upper-level classes, particularly
in biology.
15. Develop a science seminar series funded through the College and/or external funding that brings once a month
to the campus speakers in the various disciplines to discuss recent advances in the field, career opportunities
for science graduates, and the graduate/professional experience required. Seniors would be expected to attend
these seminars.
16. Develop strong active involvement in regional/national science organizations to keep abreast of new
programs/trends/funding opportunities in science education. The Colleges involvement in Project
Kaleidoscope has been invaluable.
17. Provide outreach/community service activities to area schools students and teachers. These activities could
include teacher workshops, and science majors at the College working as mentors/tutors with area school
students.
18. Provide each new faculty member start-up funds comparable to that offered at other ACS institutions.
19. Expect each faculty member to have a strong, demonstrable, and lasting commitment to research appropriate
for undergraduate student involvement.
20. Expect all members of the faculty to seek outside funding for research, curricular changes, equipment, and/or
new course/program development.
21. Increase available development funds for faculty to explore possibilities for student research projects. These
funds could be used for travel, modest startup funds, and Cold Spring Harbor/Woods Hole-type courses.
22. Increase the effective use of technology and instrumentation in both the classroom and the laboratory for
teaching, learning, and research. Augment the endowment for essential laboratory equipment. Create an
endowment for the operation of the new science facility.
23. Increase technical support staff. Convert the current 10-month position to a 12-month appointment. At least
one additional person will be needed for a new facility.
24. Communicate better to the College Community the nature of science education and research.
25. Continue working with the administration of the College to provide the time, money, faculty, and support
services required to implement the above.
35
APPENDIX III: EXPANDING THE PARADIGM OF GENERAL EDUCATION
A REPORT OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE - FALL SEMESTER 1997
Nancy Davis, Susan Hagen, George Klersey, Michael McInturff, Bill Myers, Lester Seigel, Bob Whetstone, Roy Wells,
and Leo Pezzementi, Birmingham-Southern College
However official college documents may have defined general education, conventionally students and faculty members—even
the public at large—have associated general education with a prescribed set of courses taken in fulfillment of requirements for a
college degree. At some institutions that set is a series of courses taken by all students in common in an established order—a
core set of courses; at others it is a selection from designated choices in a range of categories—distribution requirements.
Since 1978, at Birmingham-Southern College it has been, in addition to demonstration of written and mathematical
competency, one to two units of credit taken in seven specified areas, each of which models a different intellectual mode of
inquiry, such as in metaphysics or ethics, literature or history, aesthetics, or the natural or behavioral sciences, as well as
language acquisition. Certainly this conventional perception of general education, whatever the organizational model used,
must remain at the center of our view of what experiences are needed in common for a liberally educated student body.
We now recognize, however, that while that “prescribed set of courses” is a necessary component in the definition of general
education, it is not sufficient. It neither describes fully what we have actually been doing in the past nor what we must do in
the future to assure the prosperity of liberal arts education. The activities and qualities listed below are things we recognize as
increasingly important in producing the types of learning and habits of mind necessary for educated people in the 21st century,
people of knowledge and adaptability, personal initiative and team-work, inquiry and practice. The aim of Birmingham-Southern
College is in no way to limit, much less replace, the traditional notion of general education but rather to expand it to address the
expanding set of talents and skills necessary for learned people in an increasingly complex social and technological society.
Similarly, we wish to expand the paradigm of ways in which the goals of general education might be achieved. Never should
we underestimate the power of a lecture expertly presented and passionately felt. Never should we minimize the worth of
individual study conducted in privacy in the library, studio, or lab. Never should we denigrate learning purely for the joy of
learning. But by the same token, neither should we underestimate the power of students learning from each other, or minimize
energy to be gained from working collaboratively, or denigrate the practical application of things learned speculatively.
Thus, the College acknowledges a new role for faculty and staff in liberal learning in the following areas:
•
Collaborative Learning. The first part of the expanding paradigm facilitates active and collaborative learning in which the
student becomes an active participant in the learning process, interacting with faculty and peers. Examples of collaborative
learning include undergraduate research, team exercises in the classroom and the laboratory, or any of an infinite number
of adaptations to classroom pedagogy and course design. The College fosters such activities by striving to maintaining a
1:12 faculty-student ratio, by retaining a faculty committed to a student-centered learning community, and by offering
support for continued faculty development in innovative teaching.
•
Discovery and Creativity. A liberal education nurtures the love of discovery and creativity. Good teaching in this area
encourages the student to appreciate the intrinsic value of discovery and creativity through instruction in the four primary
activities involved in the process: preparation, consolidation, insight, and verification. It is important for all students in a
liberal arts college, regardless of major, to learn not only to appreciate the acts of creativity and discovery, but to learn to
be creative, for it is creativity and discovery that lead to all that we hold dear in a liberal education.
•
Teaching Experiences. Essential to an institution dedicated to liberal learning is teaching as an example of theory in
practice. Effective teaching not only illustrates the application of knowledge, it also raises the teacher's understanding of
the subject matter to a higher level, for only when something becomes an integral part of our own understanding can we
have the clarity of mind to communicate it to another. Acknowledging the learning component of teaching, then, the
College encourages peer teaching activities in and out of the classroom setting and provides various opportunities for
students to work with full-time faculty in teaching, as well as research, endeavors.
•
Scholarship. Equally important to an academic institution is scholarship, whether it be the scholarship of discovery, which
encompasses most traditional research; the scholarship of integration, which approaches interdisciplinary questions with
the same rigor; the scholarship of application, which applies knowledge and theory to the problems of the world; and the
scholarship of teaching, which is as valid as any of the other forms of scholarship, and central to the mission of the
College. All of these forms of scholarship are characterized by clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods,
36
significant results, effective communication, and reflective critique. It is important that undergraduate students learn,
through both independent and collaborative projects, the importance of scholarship to life-long learning. To that end, a
summer program in undergraduate research is underway, and both on-campus and off-campus opportunities for student
presentations of research findings are encouraged. Just as the College supports faculty travel for presentation of papers at
professional conferences, funds have been set aside for aiding students in presentation of their research.
•
Technology as a Partner in Teaching and Research. Technology as a partner in teaching and research is an integral
part of any contemporary learning model. Technology can take us beyond the walls of the local College to acclaimed
libraries, sophisticated laboratories, and advanced databases around the globe. It can also provide us with 24-hour access
to class materials and electronic communication, and computer visualization of complex theorems and intellectual models.
Recognizing technology’s promise, the College has invested heavily in a computer infrastructure that links every venue of
the residential and academic community. Looking to technology to serve education in such a way as to preserve the best
of the personal mentor/student relationship while expanding the potential for learning and teaching skills useful in an
increasingly technological society, the College values technology not for itself, but for how it may be put to the service of
teaching and learning as a seamless part of the College curriculum.
•
Civic Imagination. There seems to be a consensus among those who watch teachers and write about liberal learning
that the mission of colleges in the new millennium should include the cultivation of civic imagination. BirminghamSouthern College has developed a model for civic imagination through its pioneering efforts in leadership studies and
learning through service. These programs are wonderful examples of the new way of delivering education, for they
permeate both the instructional and the student life realms of the campus community. Through both programs, faculty,
staff, and students are brought together with the local community in an attempt to better define what the citizen of
tomorrow should be.
•
Cross-Cultural Experiences. These new citizens must understand themselves as a part of a culture, a race, a gender, or
a nation. Understanding one’s place in an ever-widening circle of contexts is one of the most traditional goals of liberal
learning and it continues to be so. But citizens of the next century must understand those contexts from the perspectives
of others, too, if they are to play a vital role in our global culture. Cross-cultural experiences through study abroad
opportunities, international internships, service learning and interim projects, and regular term learning have been
expanded at the College. Soon, these programs will take on a new dimension, as an office of cross-cultural and
international studies is established to oversee programmatic aspects of this essential area of learning.
•
Moral Imagination. Tomorrow's citizens will be faced with moral and ethical dilemmas, both those common to the general
human experience as well as those created by an ever-changing world. Liberal arts education provides these citizens
opportunities for the exploration of decision-making and problem-solving strategies across disciplines. Through reading
the literature of a people in crisis, examining the politics or psychology of conflict, designing an experiment to better
understand an issue, or performing a work with emotional impact, students gain not only an academic understanding of
their world, but also an opportunity to see the world of others. It is through such understanding that we develop the
empathy to participate in solving problems with others while integrating our knowledge with our personal beliefs. Allowing
tomorrow's citizens to experience the world of others provides them with vicarious practice for making life's decisions, thus
enhancing their development of personal convictions. Personal convictions paired with civic imagination is the goal of
liberal learning.
General education in the liberal arts tradition has always extended its focus beyond the confines of the campus and the college
years. The expanded paradigm will increase our emphasis on preparing students to be life-long learners, to be active and
successful in careers and communities, to be individuals who make positive contributions to the world around them. The
increased emphasis on theory and practice will encourage students to be participatory learners and leaders throughout their
lives. The expanded paradigm should serve our students well even when they first leave the College. They should be better
prepared for graduate and professional study and more highly prized by the world of business. Because of their General
Education experiences, our graduates will be better able to understand and help shape the changing world of the next century.
Their knowledge, experience, and adaptability will serve them well. These will be invaluable skills in advanced study, in
business and government, and in all facets of life.
37
APPENDIX IV. Letters of Endorsement
Page 39 – Letter of Commitment from Dr. H. Irvin Penfield, Provost.
Page 40 – Letter of Endorsement from Dr. Susan Hagen, Associate Dean of the College,
Chair of the Humanities.
38
39
40
APPENDIX V. Abbreviated Syllabus
Biology 363 - Molecular Cell Biology
Birmingham-Southern College
Fall 1993
Leo Pezzementi
Text: Recombinant DNA, 2nd edition., James D. Watson, Michael Gilman, Jan Witkowski, and Mark Zoller. 1993.
New York: Freeman. I am still considering texts at this time.
The goals of the course are for you
•
•
•
to learn the vocabulary and concepts of modern molecular and cellular biology,
to learn to understand and examine the experimental basis for generalizations about genes, gene expression,
and cell function,
to learn how to write a scientific grant proposal. These have been modified.
Course Outline. This course will probably be different from other science courses that you have taken. I will lecture only
during the first month of the course. During this time, we will cover selected portions of the text. These lectures will
provide you with a background for the remainder of the course, during which we will read and discuss original scientific
articles from the literature. This format will be modified.
Lecture. The lectures during the first month of the course will cover the following topics and Chapters:
Chapter Topic
Devel. of Recombinant DNA Technol.
2
DNA is the Primary Genetic Material
3
Elucidation of the Genetic Code
4
The Genetic Elements of Gene Expression
5
Creating Recombinant DNA Molecules
Analysis of Cloned Genes
6
The Polymerase Chain Reaction
7
The Isolation of Cloned Genes
8
The Complexity of the Genome
9
Controlling Eukaryotic Gene Expression
Chapter Topic
New Tools for Studying Gene Function
11
In Vitro Mutagenesis
12
Transferring Genes into Mammalian Cells
14
Introduction of Foreign Genes into Mice
Appl. of Recomb. DNA to Biotechnology
23
Recomb. DNA in Medicine and Industry
Impact on Human Genetics
26
Mapping & Cloning Human Disease Genes
27
DNA-Based Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases
28
Working Toward Human Gene Therapy
Seminars/Discussions. After the lecture portion of the course is finished, you will be required to lead discussion groups
when the class meets. You will work individually This time students will work in groups. and will lead two discussion
groups -- some of these seminars will be before Fall Break and some after Fall Break. This portion of the course will
allow you to analyze some of the most recent discoveries in molecular and cellular biology. You will select articles from
Nature or Science that I have placed on reserve in the library. Each of these articles is accompanied by a "News and
Views" article that provides background material and usually says why the article is important. You must select your
article at least one week before you present it to the class. This will alert me to the topic of your presentation. When you
are leading a discussion group, you will meet with me to discuss your article before it is discussed in class. The tentative
calendar for these discussions is attached to the syllabus. Even though only one student is responsible for leading the
discussion, all students are responsible for participating in the discussion. To facilitate this participation, you will be
required to complete discussion worksheets. I will provide you with more information about these sheets before we begin
this part of the course. I will give a sample seminar.
New course description. Biology 325, Recombinant DNA Technology. A course investigating the impact of
genetic engineering in the biological sciences. Emphasis will be placed on the techniques of gene cloning and
analysis and how these techniques can be used as tools in basic research in signal transduction, oncogenes,
evolution, and nervous system function; and in applied research in agriculture, medicine, and industry. The social
impact of recombinant DNA technology will also be discussed. Three lecture/discussions and one three-hour
laboratory each week. Some laboratory work outside the scheduled laboratory time will also be required.
Prerequisites: BI 105, 115, 125, and 301.
41
APPENDIX VI. ARTICLE DISCUSSION WORKSHEET (Spacing condensed to fit one page.)
Name
Author
Title
Please complete the worksheet before class in a color or ink or pencil different from that you will
in class. You may use additional sheets. During the discussion you may want to add to or modify
what you have written on the worksheet. Please do not scratch out anything; indicate additions
you make in class by using a different color pen or pencil.
PHASE I - What The Author Said
1. Definitions: List key new terms and concepts. Define those you don't already know. Circle
those you feel need to be discussed. (Don't use class time to define terms that are clear to all.)
2. Summarize the author's general point in 3 or 4 sentences (in a manner similar to an abstract).
State points directly rather than "he says" or "it's about". (Don't evaluate the material here!)
3. Identify Major Themes and Key Points. This is best done by a point outline. Note and circle
questions and points you feel need discussion. Your outline should cover the entire assignment,
but your discussion should deal only with areas that group members feel it would be most
profitable to discuss.
4. Allocate Time for Discussion (in class only)
5. Discuss the Article: What the Author Said (in class only)
PHASE II - What I Think About This
Develop your ideas for integration, application, and evaluation into short paragraphs.
6. Integration: with other course materials? With your other knowledge of science? To the
nature and limits of scientific knowledge? With ideas outside science?
7. Applications and Implications: for basic science? For applied science? For science education?
For society?
1. Evaluate Article on the following points: Adequate Presentation (clear, consistent, evidence,
analysis) Contextual Evaluation (alternatives, other data) Consequences (positive, negative,
credulity or skepticism) Your Position (key ideas, accept or reject, why?) Impact (effective,
interesting, tone, terse or wordy, other)
42
APPENDIX VII.
Below is a questionnaire that I gave to the students at the end of the cloning project in cell
biology; two representative answers, given verbatim, for questions 2-5; and my comments.
1. Compared to other laboratories that I have participated in, the cDNA cloning lab was
a. much worse-0 b. worse-0 c. the same-1 d. better-0 e. much better-10
2. Please explain your answer.
I enjoyed the lab because I felt as though I was actually accomplishing something researchwise, and truly learning about it, whereas in other labs I sometimes felt as though they were just
lab exercises.
Unlike other labs, this one allowed us to follow through from the very starting preparation of
the clones to the sequencing of the isolated DNA. The other labs have everything already
prepared for the most part.
The students really had a sense of ownership of the project, more than I have seen in other
laboratories, even very investigative ones.
3. Regardless of your answer, what was the best part of the exercise?
The moment I found out that I had gotten a gene. It was a real sense of accomplishment.
Actually being able to sequence the DNA & determine what it (probably) was.
Almost unanimously, the students also felt a great sense of accomplishment at the end of the
project. They were proud to display their posters in the hallway.
4. Regardless of your answer, what was the worst part of the exercise?
The worst part of the exercise was the fact that we did the sequencing part over after no
results, however, I am not sure that was exactly a bad idea since it made us more familiar with
the methods.
Doing the sequencing reaction more than once because data was not gained.
The difficulty of getting the DNA sequencing reactions was very frustrating for the students;
the students did not have any trouble with the PCR-screening of recombinant colonies. Their
DNA was pure enough to be sequenced at UAB; the problem was with the sequencing reactions.
5. What could be done to make the laboratory better?
Finding out exactly why our sequencing did not work, (i.e. denatured sequence enzyme, etc.)
and correcting it so the class may have a better chance of successful sequencing than we did.
Have a overall outline of each weeks experiments given to each student at the start of the
experiments, with a little detail about the objectives achieved for each week. This would be
helpful, because of the fact that many of the experiment sometimes have to be repeated from the
previous weeks.
I plan to correct the sequencing problem by having the sequencing done at UAB. The second
comment also refers primarily to the sequencing problem, but also to one other problem
encountered in the laboratory, the vacuum-based Wizard plasmid prep procedure, which was
problematic in both my teaching and research laboratories. We have solved this problem by
switching to the centrifuge-based protocol, which works virtually every time. I will also prepare
better laboratory directions.
43
APPENDIX VIII. Tentative Laboratory Outline.
WEEK 1.
Introduction: Practice plasmid preparation and agarose gel; selection of clones.
WEEK 2.
Screening of clones by PCR; start PCR during class time.
WEEK 3.
Isolation of recombinant plasmids for sequencing (Promega Wizard Miniprep);
analysis on agarose gel, and cycle sequencing at UAB.
WEEK 4.
Introduction to DNA sequence analysis and identification of clones.
WEEK 5.
Time for completion of project if necessary; preparation of posters.
WEEK 6.
Extraction of cholinesterase expression clones from bacterial stocks for in vitro
expression (Qiagen Midiprep).
WEEK 7.
Transfection (begun during class time; Life Technologies Lipofectamine) and
collection of data on cholinesterases. Analysis of data on cholinesterases; design of
mutagenesis experiments.
WEEK 8.
Site-directed mutagenesis (begun during class time); transformations during
laboratory (Stratagene Quick-Change).
WEEK 9.
Isolation of plasmid DNA from putative mutant clones; analysis by cycle sequencing
(Wizard).
WEEK 10.
Midiprep of plasmid DNA from mutant bacteria (Qiagen).
WEEK 11.
Transfection (begun during class time; Lipofectamine) and collection and analysis of
data on mutant enzymes.
WEEK 12.
Time for completion of project if necessary.
WEEK 13.
Final version of paper due. (First draft due during week 9.)
44
APPENDIX IX.
MAJOR Equipment in Cell/Molecular Biology Available for Use by Undergraduates.a
Instrument
Date
Sorvall RC5B Superspeed refrigerated centrifuge
1998
Hoeffer PS 3000 V electrophoresis power supply *
1995
Harris SLT ultralowtemperature freezer
1993
Nikon Labophot-2 fluorescent microscope*
1993
NAPCO 6200 controlled atmosphere incubator
1993
Olympus inverted microscope
1993
Biorad Gene Pulser Electroporation System
1993
BioRad Polyacrylamide minigel electrophoresis chambers (5)
1993
BioRad Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis chambers (2)
1993
BioRad PowerPac300 electrophoresis power supplies (4)
1993
Hoeffer UVTM Transilluminator and Polaroid camera
1993
MVE XC-47/11 Liquid nitrogen refrigerator
1993
BioRad 1000/500 Power Supply*
1993
BioRad Mini Trans-blot Western blotting modules (4)
1993
Lab-Line Reciprocal Shakers (2)
1993
Heraeus Labofuge B lowspeed centrifuge
1993
IEC Clinical centrifuge
1993
Stratagene UV Stralinker 1800*
1991
Stratagene Hybridizer 700 hybridization oven*
1991
Savant SVC100 SpeedVac and trap*
1991
Perkin Elmer Cetus DNA Thermal Cycler 480*
1991
Hoeffer Pokerface DNA sequencing gel electrophoresis chamber*
1991
Hoeffer DryGel Sr. Gel dryer*
1991
Bio-Tek Instruments EL311 microtiter plate reader*
1991
Beckman L7-55 ultracentrifuge and rotors*
1991
Millipore Milli-Q Plus Water System*
1991
Lauda MS-20 circulating water bath*
1991
Hoeffer RedRocker and Thomas Rocker platforms*
1991
Hewlitt-Packard 8452A diode array uv-visible spectrophotometer
1990
IEC Centra-8R refrigerated lowspeed centrifuge
1990
Fisher 9000 circulating refrigerated water bath
1990
Buchler LC-200 Fraction collector
1990
Braunsonic 1510 sonicator
1990
Brinkman Polytron and probe*
1988
Forma Scientific 3158 controlled atmosphere incubator
1988
Forma Scientific 8333 ultralowtemperature freezer
1988
Forma Scientific 1104 biological safety cabinet
1988
Beckman LS5000TA liquid scintillation counter*
1988
Pharmacia P3 peristaltic pump*
1988
Pelton and Crane Magna-Clave Autoclave
1985
LKB fraction collector
1980
IEC B-20A refrigerated highspeed centrifuge
1965
BioRad and Sratagene agarose gel chambers (5 teaching, 5 research)*
1991-1993
Eppendorf and Heraeus Microfuges (2 teaching, 2 research)*
1991-1993
Shaking water baths (1 teaching, 2 research)
1980-1993
pH meters, balances, vortexes, water baths, stirring hot plates, heat blocks, etc.
Total
a
All equipment in the department, whether for teaching or research, is used by undergraduates.
b
Cost listed is for total when multiple units are listed.
*Indicates at least partial funding by grants from the NSF and NIH.
Costb
35,000
2,000
6,000
14,000
6,000
2,000
6,000
2,500
5,000
3,000
1,500
1,000
1,200
1,200
2,000
2,000
1,200
1,200
3,000
2,500
8,000
1,200
1,000
5,000
40,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
2,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
3,000
3,000
5,000
27,000
1,200
7,000
1,000
5,000
2,500
6,500
4,000
250,900
45