I commend Todd Woerner for his efforts to manage the chemistry teaching laboratories at Duke, and for working to integrate electronic laboratory notebooks into the labs. However, several of Woerner's well-intentioned ideas seem to prohibit rather than promote learning in undergraduate chemistry. For instance, Woerner states that students should not have to learn electronic note taking in the laboratory, because of the "difficulty of manipulating and formatting files." Isn't that a bit soft, considering that most students these days probably grew up with computers? And, wouldn't such skills, once learned, open more doors for exploration in chemistry? Or, at the very least, make Duke students incrementally more capable of functioning in an increasingly technology-based society?
He further claims that students shouldn't push themselves because no one else is. In other words, because "academia and industry research labs aren't there yet either", Duke chemistry instructors should abstain from preparing their students for the future. Does that make any sense -- at one of America's leading universities? Shouldn't norms be challenged, and in their place, new ideas explored?
Of course, everyone knows that technology can be full of "pitfalls". But, rather than shy away from technology, shouldn't we face its challenges? If the software is so difficult, why not imagine a few steps to solve that problem? For instance:
* Why not sponsor an undergraduate to investigate what his or her classmates dislike the most about electronic laboratory notebooks?
* Taking such knowledge, couldn't someone then design improvements to the software? I'm sure you could find a computer science undergraduate who'd be curious enough to explore such a problem. He or she might even make enough progress to market an improvement to the existing software! Or, perhaps manufacturers of laboratory software such as LabVIEW might be interested in providing funds for such an exploration?
* Why not explore some features of popular software programs - such as Equation Editor within Microsoft Word -- that make computerized entry of equations easier than Woerner claims?
Everyone would learn from such simple explorations. And, the frustrating
problems would get solved.
Students should be held to reasonable standards of excellence and self-advancement. Instead, Woerner's philosophy seems to hold only complacency in high regard. Why not titrate the chemistry laboratory course with a few more moles of imagination?
Andrew McKee
Duke University School of Medicine, MS4
Todd Woerner responds:
I believe Dr. McKee and I probably agree on ELN use more than he may think. He seems to think I am arguing that ELNs cannot be used in the teaching labs. It's quite the opposite. In fact, I am using ELNs in select courses every year. Indeed, I believe we need to, and should continue to, use them because this is the trend in professional science. As educators it is our responsibility to stay current with changing trends.
The point I attempt to make in the story is that there is no great need to convert all chemistry teaching labs (from general chemistry classes to senior level work) over to ELN's. Why not? Because most industry and research labs have not made the complete switch yet. Students should still do some record keeping on paper because in many jobs settings now and for the near future they will still use paper.
They should have exposure to ELNs in addition because some settings now, and more in the future, will use them. My information about this comes mostly from industry professionals. At a recent pharmaceuticals conference, I asked whether we change over totally to ELN. They attendees said - no, not yet. They felt we were correct in giving students experience with both paper and ELN.