Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T22:43:29.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2023

Robert Mayes
Affiliation:
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, United States
Joseph Dauer*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska—Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
David Owens
Affiliation:
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, United States
*
Corresponding author: Joseph Dauer; Email: joseph.dauer@unl.edu

Abstract

The United States National Science and Technology Council has made a call for improving STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education at the convergence of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The National Science Foundation (NSF) views convergence as the merging of ideas, approaches, and technologies from widely diverse fields of knowledge to stimulate innovation and discovery. Teaching convergency requires moving to the transdisciplinary level of integration where there is deep integration of skills, disciplines, and knowledge to solve a challenging real-world problem. Here we present a summary on convergence and transdisciplinary teaching. We then provide examples of convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in plant biology, and conclude by discussing limitations to contemporary conceptions of convergency and transdisciplinary STEM.

Information

Type
Perspective
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with The John Innes Centre
Figure 0

Figure 1. The Federal Coordination in STEM Education Subcommittee agency partners.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Levels of integration. Adapted from Heinzmann et al., 2019. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Levels of Integration Elements. Adapted from Awan, 2022. Reprinted with permission.

Author comment: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R0/PR1

Comments

Article was solicited by Editor Oliver Hunt.

Review: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I find this topic very important and overall, like the premise and purpose of this paper in the journal. There are a couple of major shortcomings, though, which I will expand upon in this review.

L 20: Exactly who is this interdisciplinary STEAM teaching team? Why do they exist? For what purpose? I suggest a softer entrance into this paper by setting an international (or explicit USA) tone to the paper by a broader scope in the beginning of the Introduction, max 3 sentences, placing the perceived need, including policy, for convergence research. Then introduce the team. I think it should be clear to the reader what the core of the need is, before going into the details of transdisciplinary STEM.

L38: I suggest reflecting on this statement for the reader: what leads the NSTC to call for improving STEM education at the convergence of science? Make this clear for the reader, great if you can cite policy papers or statements from the Council. This helps lay the real-life context for the reader (and the student!). This relates to the previous point of painting the broad picture early in the first paragraph and slowly increasing the resolution at the level of the NSTC and then at individual teaching institutions.

L 41: Give a definition of “Transdisciplinary teaching”

L 164: I find it odd that the definition of convergence comes this far into the paper. I think the Introduction should give the general definitions of convergence and transdisciplinary and then specific references to policy definitions can come here, as done.

L 170: strike “Check out:” and replace with “These include:”

L 216: “leaning” to “learning”

Figure 3: This illustration serves as a cartoon, but it should be noted for the reader that the elements of distinct ice cream flavors (chocolate, strawberry, etc) represent single disciplines. This figure is a 2D illustration of how these elements are combined, using the definitions of disciplinary-multi-inter-trans, but do not include the purpose of the disciplinary integration. For example: if the policymaker really needed a strawberry ice cream cone, you don’t serve her a chocolate milkshake. This might be implicitly obvious to the reader, but I think in a paper like this, you should err on the side of making this point explicit for your reader.

Another “caution” for Figure 3 is the proverbial “cherry on the top” in the ice cream metaphor. If the disciplines in the “interdisciplinary” sundae in Figure 3 are math, chemistry and physics which are integrated to give knowledge on plant pesticide transfers in a German forest, for example, there’s a serious risk that the “cherry on the top” (or in the case of the transdisciplinary milkshake, the strawberry on the top) is social science, or ethics, or political science. So here, great inter- or transdisciplinary STEM science can be done, but has no true integration with the social, economic CONTEXT of the real-world problem.

L 254: “involving stakeholders” should not be taken lightly: What do the NSTC policy statements say about including social sciences in STEM transdisciplinary teaching/learning/application?

This leads me to criticize the transdisciplinary application in your duckweed plant biology example:

L 314: for me, the “put their experimental design into practice” should also have a social and ethical lens through which the students analyze their duckweed microcosms. This lens brings in the “SHOULD we do it this way; who is benefitting from this experiment; what risks are we bringing into the environment (the integrated social, economic and natural environment)”

The “Duckweed case study of morphology and life cycles” example works at the mono-multi and interdisciplinary level, but not at the Transdisciplinary level if the previous point “involve stakeholders (L 254)” still holds true (which it should!) The students will quickly find that if the scientific real-world problem is not properly defined, they will not have any direction on how to approach or design the transdisciplinary solution.

In my view, it is absolutely necessary to re-formulate the problem in this concrete Plant Biology example of convergence and transdisciplinarity. For example: “Duckweed case study of morphology and life cycles: where is the “sweet spot” for the natural and human community in Pond X in County Y in Country X?” Because I know that duckweed and become too much of a good thing, but what the “good thing” is, or what the goal of understanding the growth and development of duckweed is, must be put in a real-life case with the natural AND social context.

This will lead the student to have to assess the different trade-offs (too little duckweed will lead to hungry ducks who leave the pond in search for food and then families stop taking their kids to the pond to see the ducks, so when people stop using the park the authorities stop maintaining the park, the park becomes overgrown, too much duckweed leads to eutrophication and all the fish die and recreational fishers stop coming and the government gets no revenue in fishing licenses, etc….)

The transdisciplinary approach I would take for the specific Duckweed-in-Pond-X example is that of Responsible Research and Innovation (e.g. www.rri-tools.eu )and the 4 dimensions of “anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity and responsiveness” as guided by Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten (2012)).

From https://www.digitallifenorway.org/services/rri/index.html:

The dimension of anticipation conveys that actors in science and innovation should map the plausible effects of their innovations, intended as well as unintended ones, and develop socially robust strategies to prevent harmful and undesirable outcomes (in the Duckweed-in-Pond-X example).

The dimension of inclusion encourages research and innovation actors to get in touch with potential future users and other concerned actors. They can provide valuable insights into contexts of application as well as their opinions on desirable research trajectories (in the Duckweed-in-Pond-X example).

The dimension of reflexivity invites scientists to evaluate their own moral, political and social assumptions as these, too, influence the choice of research problems, methodology and innovation design (in the Duckweed-in-Pond-X example).

The dimension of responsiveness urges scientists to change research and innovation trajectories if the feedback from stakeholders or public opinion show that present goals and planned actions are contrary to social needs, or are ethically unacceptable. The underlying question all researchers and innovators should ask themselves is: what kind of a future do we want to create through research and innovation (through our Duckweed-in-Pond-X example)?

L 356: exactly which author is making this acknowledgement?

Overall, the purpose of this paper is clear, but the omission of a discussion on how the social sciences are necessary for transdisciplinarity must be addressed. I simply cannot recommend a paper like this without the authors acknowledging the role of social science and ethics in real-world problem solving. Indeed, the authors would benefit from contacting social science colleague(s) at their respective institutions and ask them how they would contribute to a duckweed transdisciplinary teaching example. In conclusion, reflection on the social and philosophical dimensions (for example by applying the RRI approach) need to be included in this paper; I am convinced that these reflections are needed to truly aid in fulfilling the Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan.

Recommendation: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R0/PR3

Comments

Dear authors,

Thanks for your submission “Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education efforts for quantitative biology” to QPB. My apologies for the time it has taken for this response. This was in part due to difficulty engaging reviewers over the summer period.

The editors have discussed your paper and comments from peer review are attached. There are several major points which we encourage you to address in a resubmission. From the editorial perspective, the manuscript as it stands is rather more orientated towards general policy and not yet scientifically-grounded enough for inclusion in QPB. The editorial recommendation is to reduce the bulk of the general statements and replace with concrete case study/studies in extenso to explain how data were collected, analyzed, etc. with a plant focus. The existing duckweed case study is somewhat limited in scope and detail and an expanded version would be more appropriate for QPB.

The reviewer’s comments should all be addressed but I’d like to highlight one of their foci in particular, regarding “transdisciplinarity”. They highlight that an important part of the transition from inter- to trans- comes with the inclusion of a social and ethical lens, which is currently rather absent from the definitions and the case study. They have some good suggestions for how to expand the final part of the case study to fold in these broader (and cross-sector) perspectives. This would automatically help the above point about expansion of plant science case studies.

Decision: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R1/PR5

Comments

This article was accepted for publication by your journal, but was delayed by White House release. I have provided a Graphical Abstract as requested. All prior reviewer comments were addressed in the attached version.

Review: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R1/PR6

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Thank you for taking my reviewer comments into consideration. I find the revised manuscript more accurate and readable now.

A small edit needed:

Line 418: “Conclusion” header should be on a new line

Recommendation: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R2/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R2/PR10

Comments

Thanks again for your time revising this manuscript. I believe comments from both reviewers and me have been addressed and am happy to recommend that we proceed with this publication.

For the record, the authors have obtained permission from the original content creators for the content reproduced in this article.

Decision: Convergence and transdisciplinary teaching in quantitative biology — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.