Brains Rule!: a model program for developing professional stewardship among neuroscientists.
(73/507)
Brains Rule! Neuroscience Expositions, funded through a National Institute on Drug Abuse Science Education Drug Abuse Partnership Award, has developed a successful model for informal neuroscience education. Each Exposition is a "reverse science fair" in which neuroscientists present short neuroscience teaching modules to students. This study focuses on results of assessments conducted with neuroscientist presenters during Expositions at two sites, Atlanta, Georgia and Corpus Christi, Texas. The effects of participating in the Expositions on presenters' perceptions of their own presentation and communication skills were evaluated, as was the potential for increased active participation by neuroscientists in future outreach programs. In four of the five Expositions studied, pre- versus post-event surveys demonstrated significant changes in presenters' perceptions of their own abilities to explain neuroscience concepts to children. Over the course of an Exposition, presenters learned to fit their approaches to conveying neuroscience concepts to fifth through eighth graders and learned to link information they presented about the brain and nervous system to children's past experiences to improve comprehension. The present data suggest that Brains Rule! Neuroscience Expositions are effective in improving communication and teaching skills among neuroscience professionals and contribute to professional stewardship by increasing motivation to participate in future informal education programs. (+info)
Using literature and innovative assessments to ignite interest and cultivate critical thinking skills in an undergraduate neuroscience course.
(74/507)
Science education reform initiatives emphasize 1) the value of concepts over facts; 2) the benefits of open-ended, inquiry-based problem-solving rather than protocols leading to a single correct answer; and 3) the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to teaching that is not confined by departmental boundaries. Neuroscientists should be at the forefront of this movement by the very nature of the discipline we study. Neuroscience is a relatively new field that integrates diverse subjects (anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, molecular biology, computer science, and psychology) and experimental advances are constantly changing and expanding our understanding of brain function. How can we convey this excitement in the classroom? The project described in this article uses nonscientific literature to introduce a scientific topic of study. In addition, the multitask assignment requires the acquisition of content knowledge and the development of critical thinking skills. As students explore the topic from multiple perspectives, they recognize the interconnectedness of science and society and confront ethical and moral issues related to science. A comparison of exam scores, essay responses, engagement level, as well as students' own reflections, demonstrates that inclusion of the project does not sacrifice content knowledge, rather it enhances the overall learning process. (+info)
Routes to research for novice undergraduate neuroscientists.
(75/507)
Undergraduate students may be attracted to science and retained in science by engaging in laboratory research. Experience as an apprentice in a scientist's laboratory can be effective in this regard, but the pool of willing scientists is sometimes limited and sustained contact between students and faculty is sometimes minimal. We report outcomes from two different models of a summer neuroscience research program: an Apprenticeship Model (AM) in which individual students joined established research laboratories, and a Collaborative Learning Model (CLM) in which teams of students worked through a guided curriculum and then conducted independent experimentation. Assessed outcomes included attitudes toward science, attitudes toward neuroscience, confidence with neuroscience concepts, and confidence with science skills, measured via pre-, mid-, and postprogram surveys. Both models elevated attitudes toward neuroscience, confidence with neuroscience concepts, and confidence with science skills, but neither model altered attitudes toward science. Consistent with the CLM design emphasizing independent experimentation, only CLM participants reported elevated ability to design experiments. The present data comprise the first of five yearly analyses on this cohort of participants; long-term follow-up will determine whether the two program models are equally effective routes to research or other science-related careers for novice undergraduate neuroscientists. (+info)
Development of a neuroscience-oriented "methods" course for graduate students of pharmacology and toxicology.
(76/507)
To provide graduate students in pharmacology/toxicology exposure to, and cross-training in, a variety of relevant laboratory skills, the Duquesne University School of Pharmacy developed a "methods" course as part of the core curriculum. Because some of the participating departmental faculty are neuroscientists, this course often applied cutting-edge techniques to neuroscience-based systems, including experiments with brain G protein-coupled receptors. Techniques covered by the course include animal handling and behavioral testing, bacterial and mammalian cell culture, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, western blotting, receptor binding of radioligands, plasmid DNA amplification and purification, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, gel electrophoresis, and UV-visible and fluorescence spectroscopy. The course also encompasses research aspects such as experimental design and record keeping, statistical analysis, and scientific writing. Students were evaluated via laboratory reports and examinations, and students in turn evaluated the course using a detailed exit survey. This course introduces the graduate student to many more techniques and approaches than can be provided by the traditional graduate "rotation" format alone and should serve as a template for graduate programs in many basic research disciplines. (+info)
Form and function in systems neuroscience.
(77/507)
'Form follows function' is an architectural philosophy attributed to the great American architect Louis Sullivan, and later taken up by the Bauhaus movement. It stresses that the form of a building should reflect its function. Neuroscientists have used the converse of this dictum to learn the functions of neural circuits, believing that if we study neural architecture, it will lead us to an understanding of how neural systems function. New tools for studying the structure of neural circuits are being developed, so it is important to discuss what the old techniques have taught us about how to derive function from the form of a neural circuit. (+info)
Neuroscience and architecture: seeking common ground.
(78/507)
As these paired Commentaries discuss, neuroscientists and architects are just beginning to collaborate, each bringing what they know about their respective fields to the task of improving the environment of research buildings and laboratories. (+info)
Architectural design and the collaborative research environment.
(79/507)
Given that science is a collaborative endeavor, architects are striving to design new research buildings that not only provide a more pleasant work space but also facilitate interactions among researchers. (+info)
Reflections on eponyms in neuroscience terminology.
(80/507)
Eponyms have played a very significant linguistic role in technical and scientific terminology. They are an important feature of language that have contributed for a long time to engraving in history the names of those researchers who have devoted their lives to scientific discovery. In the field of medical terminology, they are an asset, although their semantic effectiveness has constituted a long-standing debate. We will analyze how language contributes to the advance of science and technology and the current position of eponyms in the health sciences. Eponymy in neuroscience has been used for a long time as a way to identify and recognize scientific issues, such as diseases, syndromes, methods, processes, substances, organs, and parts of organs as a way to honor those who, in a certain way, contributed to the progress of science. However, sometimes those honors do not correspond to the real contributors, thus receiving a nondeserved acknowledgment. Another problem with eponymic references is the lack of information about the matter in hand, because eponyms do not provide any clear information leading to the identification of the situation under study, as they are not reasonably descriptive. The aim of this article is to encourage the use of descriptive terms instead of eponyms and to establish a system of scientific nomenclature to consolidate the use of the language as a means of conveying scientific information among experts. (+info)