This article deals with trends in postsecondary science in the United States. Analysis of the literature indicates that science is undergoing a subtle but steady metamorphosis in higher education as follows: a shift in the research paradigm, the rising tide of commercialism, more stringent human subject research regulations, teaching for a scientific workforce, the instructional technology invasion, pressure to participate in teacher education, ethnic and gender inequalities, a proliferation of research disciplines, and fading public influence. It is time that the university science community comes to the realization that science in higher education, like any other human enterprise, is as good as the people who learn, teach, research, and work in it and, most important, that the future of science depends on how it is used for the welfare of all mankind.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astin, Alexander W., and Helen S. Astin. 1993. Undergraduate science: The impact of different college environments on the educational pipeline in the sciences. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
2.
Beder, Sharon. 1998. The corporate infiltration of science education. School Science Review80 (290): 37-42.
3.
Birchard, K. 2001. Arts and sciences want you! Chronicle of Higher Education47:A6.
4.
Bork, Alfred. 1999. The future of learning: An interview with Alfred Bork. EDUCAOM Review34 (4): 24-27, 48-50.
5.
Brainard, J. 2001a. Panel proposes new guidelines for research with human subjects. Chronicle of Higher Education47:A24.
6.
———. 2001b. The waning influence of scientists on national policy. Chronicle of Higher Education47:A19-A22.
7.
Burdge, J. R. 2001. Using technology to teach chemistry. Chemical & Engineering News79 (13): 192.
8.
Chubin, Daryl E. 2000. Reculturing science: Politics, policy, and promises to keep. In Science, technology, & society: A sourcebook on research and practice, edited by D. D. Kumar and D. E. Chubin. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
9.
Croy, M. J. 2000. Faculty as machine monitors in higher education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society20 (2): 106-14.
10.
Ember, L. 2001. Science key to national security. Chemical & Engineering News79 (7): 11.
11.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
12.
Gregorian, Vartan. 2001. Teacher education must become colleges’ central preoccupation. Chronicle of Higher Education47 (49): B7-B8.
13.
Hackett, Edward. J. 2000. Trends and opportunities in science and technology studies: A view from the National Science Foundation. In Science, technology, & society: A sourcebook on research and practice, edited by David D. Kumar and D. E. Chubin. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
14.
Hurd, P. D. 2000. Science education for the 21st century. School Science and Mathematics100 (6): 282-88.
15.
Jacobson, J. 2001. Study documents lack of diversity in chemistry departments. Chronicle of Higher Education47:A12.
16.
Kondro, W. 1997. Spat over intellectual property threatens Canadian networks. Science275:922-23.
17.
Kumar, D. D., and James W. Altschuld. 2002. Complementary approaches to evaluating technology in science education. In Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a new millennium, edited by J. W. Altschuld and D. D. Kumar. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
18.
Kumar, D. D., and D. E. Chubin, eds. 2000. Science, technology, & society: A sourcebook on research and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
19.
Lawler, A. 2001. College heads pledge to remove barriers. Science291:806.
20.
McCarthy, T. J. 2001. A window on chemistry. Chemical & Engineering News79 (13):166.
21.
Mervis, J. 1997. NSF revamps graduate training grants. Science275 (5302): 918.
22.
———. 2002. U.S. programs ask faculty to help improve schools. Science295 (5553): 221.
23.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 2001. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
24.
National Research Council. 1995. National Science Foundation convocation on undergraduate education. Arlington, VA: National Research Council Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education and Training.
25.
Read, B. 2000. Colleges should recruit aggressively to diversify ranks of scientists, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available from http://chronicle.com/daily/2000/07/2000071402n.htm.
26.
Research Corporation. 2001. Academic excellence: The sourcebook—A study of the role of research in the natural sciences at undergraduate institutions. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
27.
Roy, R. 2000. Real science education: Replacing PCBS with s(cience) through STS throughout all levels of K-12 materials as one approach. In Science, technology, & society: A sourcebook on research and practice, edited by David D. Kumar and Daryl E. Chubin. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
28.
Schmidt, P. 2002. States push public universities to commercialize research. Chronicle of Higher Education48:A26.
29.
Steiner, C. J. 2000. Teaching scientists to be incompetent: Educating for industry work. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society20 (2): 123-32.
30.
Tenure/tenure-track faculty at the “top 50” physics departments by race/ethnicity and by rank (FY 2002). n.d. Available from http://www.awis.org/statistics/PhysicsTable.pdf.
31.
Tobias, S. 1999. Some recent developments in teacher education in mathematics and science. A review and commentary. Journal of Science Education and Technology8 (1): 21-31.
32.
Weiss, I. R., E. R. Banilower, K. C. McMahon, and P. S. Smith. 2001. A report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
