Gene Expression

Razib -
I tend to agree with your correspondent that whether or not Fuller actually had "hands-on" science training isn't really relevant to the kind of argument he presents. His argument isn't methodological, so much as a sociological. Also, if I recall correctly, Fuller did do an undergraduate degree in Sociology -- but maybe you don't view that as science (you'd hardly be alone).

Posted by: bob koepp | March 29, 2007 2:18 PM

It is my experience that science students who are more interested in conceptual issues tend to have the kind of reaction towards labs that Gimbel has. Labs simply don't teach them the aspects of science they are more interested in. (Disclosure: I am one of those conceptually/philosophically inclined students.) That said, I do think he has a case that many physics labs are useless even for those who want to be scientists. I am involved in a long-term experimental physics project, and I've learnt infinitely more about science from that than from my largely useless labs. Real scientific research, at least in physics, is nothing like your typical physics lab. So I don't think the argument that labs help to immerse one in the scientific culture holds unless the labs are well-implemented, which they often are not in physics. I had a better experience in my biology labs, though.

Posted by: Ponder Stibbons | March 29, 2007 6:24 PM

So I don't think the argument that labs help to immerse one in the scientific culture holds unless the labs are well-implemented, which they often are not in physics. I had a better experience in my biology labs, though.

i tend to agree with the point re: physics vs. biology. or, to be clearer, physical chemistry labs seemed much more detached from the lecture material than biochem or organic chemistry.

Posted by: razib | March 29, 2007 7:23 PM

The reason I think bad labs might be worse than nothing is that I know many people who fall into one of the following categories:

1) Former physics majors who switched to math because they were disillusioned by labs

2) Physics majors who want to be theorists instead of experimentalists because they disliked labs

Disliking labs is simply not a good reason to think one is not cut out for experimental science. I dislike labs, but am extremely well-disposed towards experimental physics due to my positive research experience outside of class. If I'd known only class labs I'd have pigeonholed myself as a theorist as well. Invariably, students who undertake long-term research projects outside of class have a better impression of experimental physics than those whose only lab experience is in class labs. Bad labs distort information about the nature of physics research. The problem is particularly bad in physics because (maybe because of this) there is a serious surfeit of theorists over experimentalists.

I agree that knowing the experimental method is crucial for being a scientist. Even though I am more inclined towards philosophy rather than physics, I would not have given up my undergraduate research experience for anything. I could never have learnt that method of thinking any other way. I would suggest that any student who wants to learn how science is done should try and get into a real research group and get their hands dirty with the actual process. If there was some way to make lab classes more like real research (present students with real problems rather than a set of predetermined results that they are supposed to obtain via a predetermined method, not have ridiculous deadlines students have to meet that leave no time for serious mulling over a puzzle, etc), I would absolutely be in favour of that. Dumping students in a room and telling them that they have 8 hours to follow the instructions in the lab manual is just not conducive to real experimentation.

Posted by: Ponder Stibbons | March 29, 2007 11:06 PM