Interdisciplinary graduate education: a case study.

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in contemporary biological research, but the majority of graduate students are still trained to conduct research through a traditional approach that focuses on individual disciplines. In a recent issue of Cell, Lorsch and Nichols (2011)xLorsch, J.R. and Nichols, D.G. Cell. 2011; 146: 506–509Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (5)See all ReferencesLorsch and Nichols (2011) suggested reorganizing life sciences curricula to overcome this disciplinary focus. They proposed an interdisciplinary curriculum with three “nodes” for courses—gene expression, metabolism, and cell fate and function—and two parallel integrative courses that build “connections” between the “nodes” and introduce methodology.In 2006, the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at Penn State College of Medicine charged a Core Curriculum Planning Team with reviewing and reorganizing our graduate core curriculum. The goal was to design a curriculum that integrated fundamental principles of biomedical sciences while also stressing experimental approaches that lead to an understanding of these principles. Over the next year, the Team worked diligently to design and implement a curriculum that met these challenges.Two key decisions led this Team to propose a curriculum similar to that suggested by Lorsch and Nichols. First, members from each basic science department (i.e., Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Microbiology and Immunology, Neural and Behavioral Sciences, and Pharmacology) were appointed to the Team, ensuring input from multiple disciplinary foci. Second, the Team recommended three core courses for the curriculum rather than four as in the previous core.The contrast in content is evident from the different course titles in the old and new curricula (Table 1Table 1). The previous courses were titled Genetic Analysis, Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry, reflecting the disciplinary focus of material in each course. In contrast, the three courses in the redesigned curriculum are Flow of Cellular Information (“Flow”; similar to gene expression), Regulation of Cellular and Systemic Energy Metabolism (“Metabolism”), and Cell and Systems Biology (“Cell”; similar to cell fate and function).Table 1Traditional vs. Interdisciplinary CurriculumTraditional CoursesInterdisciplinary ApproachGenetic AnalysisFlow of Cellular Information (“Flow”)Molecular BiologyRegulation of Cellular and Systemic Energy Metabolism (“Metabolism”)Cell BiologyCell and Systems Biology (“Cell”)BiochemistryEach course integrates material from multiple disciplines. Topics in “Flow” present genetic, molecular, and biochemical underpinnings of the central dogma and cover physiological regulation. Topics in “Metabolism” range from in vitro biochemical reactions to the integration and regulation of metabolism in whole organisms in both healthy and disease states. “Cell” includes concepts underlying cellular and intracellular organization, assembly of cells into tissues, and integration of cells and tissues into biological systems.“Connections” are made by juxtaposing lectures on related topics in different courses. For example: DNA replication and repair are taught in “Flow” in association with cell cycle and checkpoints in “Cell”; amino acid metabolism in “Metabolism” is juxtaposed with the regulation of translation in “Flow”; and signaling in inflammation is taught in “Metabolism” immediately prior to the immune system in “Cell.” All three courses culminate by integrating material from earlier lectures to discuss disease-centered research.Critical to the successful integration of this diverse material within and among these team-taught courses is the commitment of course directors to attend virtually all lectures in their course each year. Instructors teaching related material also attend each other's lectures or review material using our online course management system. Integration among courses is also achieved by regular meetings with directors of all three courses and the use of a “course grid” that displays when topics are presented in each course. This grid permits easy consideration of how reshuffling topics in courses affects integration of material. Student input, obtained from focus groups and curricular evaluations, is also key in developing better integration.Lorsch and Nichols suggest a “Methods and Analysis” course presenting key techniques. We developed a “Methods Grid” for instructors and students that serves the same purpose. This active learning tool chronologically lists lectures and indicates lectures in which different techniques are discussed. It is a useful resource for students as well as for teaching faculty, allowing them to build integration and depth by reference to prior knowledge.As noted by Lorsch and Nichols, documenting the benefit of curricular changes is challenging. One measure of success for our integrated curriculum is the nearly complete participation of all our Ph.D. degree programs. This suggests that faculty from diverse programs see the inherent value in this approach.The program is continually refined to improve balance, cohesiveness, integration, and effectiveness. Changes have included the movement of material between courses and the expansions and contractions of the number of lectures on several topics. Other changes have included the addition of more exams, with each exam covering material from fewer lectures, and the utilization of more out-of-class assignments and take-home exam questions. These changes were suggested by students to reinforce “thinking” over “knowing” and to provide more frequent feedback and better assessment of experimental design and data interpretation skills. In response to both faculty and student input, we scheduled lectures only three days per week this year (instead of five), with a lecture in each track each day. This has been very well received, as it provides more uninterrupted research time.Perhaps the most encouraging and far-reaching outcome of this curricular reorganization is the critical role that it serves in instigating broader interdisciplinary communication within the institution. This communication catalyzed the development of an integrated Biomedical Sciences (BMS) Graduate Program by the faculty, which incorporates the resources of six previously independent graduate programs. Students in the BMS Graduate Program may choose from more than 150 graduate faculty members as potential thesis advisers, and they enjoy a flexible and dynamic postcore curriculum that allows students and faculty members to take advantage of emerging interdisciplinary fronts.This curriculum does require increased effort in terms of organization and communication among departments. But, in the end, this curriculum better prepares students to conduct research in contemporary biology by integrating concepts and approaches while emphasizing the experimental basis of scientific discoveries.