Keck Foundation Proposal

This document is a set of ideas and talking points under consideration as the basis of a proposal to the W.M. Keck Foundation. The plan is to continue refining this document and then use it to prepare Doug for his meeting there in late September, 2005.

Brief description of the project:

This project will focus on interdisciplinary collaboration and curriculum development among the natural and physical sciences departments at Earlham College, including biology, chemistry, computer science, mathematics, and geology (plus physics?). It is clear that cutting-edge scientific research is becoming more interdisciplinary and collaborative at all levels; therefore, it is essential to train our students to develop multi-faceted approaches to problem solving. This project will introduce an important scientific problem and ask students to collect and analyze data, as well as make interpretations, using different disciplinary perspectives in both coursework and independent research projects with faculty. We believe this idea of collaborative learning will transform our undergraduate curriculum in the sciences and provide a model for interdisciplinary curricula for other liberal arts colleges.

In choosing the scientific problem around which to construct this project, we have tried to generate topics centered around faculty expertise, student interest, and local impact. We anticipate that if this approach is successful, both scientifically and educationally, we would be able to expand topics to reflect the changing interests of students, faculty, and the community. Therefore, our selection of the research problem is purposefully flexible, although any topic must meet the following explicit criteria:

• It must be broadly relevant to the scientific community (research results should be publishable).
• It must be easily adapted to both student/faculty research and the undergraduate science curriculum.
• It must involve field work, laboratory work, and computational analysis.
• It must be interdisciplinary in nature.
• It must have local impact or be important to the local community.

We have considered two topics that meet the above criteria as themes with which to begin the development of this project:

• Pesticides: Building on local expertise developed in studying the concentration and effects of atrazine in groundwater, we would propose studying pesticides in the Richmond area. Possible areas of investigation might include determination of concentrations, computational modeling of distribution, effects on area plant and animal life, and evaluation of pesticide degradation products.

• Metals: The environmental impact of local industry and geology on ground water sources would be studied using such methods computational modeling, analytical techniques, and effects/evidence of metal uptake by plants or aquatic life.

• Outcomes:
  • Research projects and curriculum modules for a variety of introductory and upper-level classes.
  • For science and non-science majors, a better understanding of both computational and experimental research methods, model development and verification, and interdisciplinary science research. For example, students in both majors and non-majors versions of general chemistry should come away with some understanding of how computational methods, chemistry, biology, and geology, work together to deepen our understanding of the problem.
  • Science outreach activities for local K-12 students and teachers. Earlham's Joseph Moore Museum has developed a significant outreach program for local school districts in the natural sciences. We propose to develop an analog to that program, based on the project theme, for science more generally.
  • Introduce students to scientific problems which incorporate local and regional issues and resources.

• Selling points:
  • Computational methods are now an important part of basic research in all of the natural sciences, yet few undergraduate programs have such components. Earlham is very well positioned to develop a template for incorporating computational methods into science curricula, e.g. our interdisciplinary approach and the high percentage of our graduates that go on to earn Ph.D.s in a science.
  • It is difficult to obtain funding from government agencies, e.g. the NSF, for cross disciplinary work such as we describe here. This puts Keck in a somewhat unique position as a sponsor for this project.

• Keck's programmatic criteria from their program guidelines:
  • Significant programs and projects that:
    • focus on emerging areas of research at the forefront of science, engineering and medicine, or have the potential to lead to breakthrough technologies in these areas; or
    • establish new directions and utilize creative approaches in education and research for the liberal arts and sciences at predominantly undergraduate institutions
    • Programs that respond to a compelling need and have the potential to create a significant and long-lasting impact
    • Programs and projects that are consistent with the Foundation's stated fields of interest
    • Programs and projects that demonstrate that the chances of success would be seriously impaired but for the assistance of private philanthropy generally, and the W.M. Keck Foundation in particular
    • Programs and projects that encourage self-sufficiency rather than continuing dependence on W.M. Keck Foundation support

• Questions:
  • Are pesticides the best choice of a common thread?
    • Lori - Seems to me--but then again, that is the one I feel clearest on what it would involve. It seems like it incorporates many disciplines (not everyone, but I think it will be hard to have a project that truly includes every single person/discipline). After having spoken with Mike and Corinne, as well as geology, I also think metals might be a very strong project.
    • Mike and Corinne - We think that metal might be a stronger project for the initial phase for several reasons:
      • We have both faculty (Corinne, Mike and Ron) with extensive metal analysis background/publication record
      • We have the equipment currently in place to analyze metals in a variety of matrices (to perform state of the art pesticide analysis, particularly metabolites, would require an LC-MS - $200,000)
      • Sample storage/processing is very easy and stable over time, which allows better integration into our curriculum (this is not true for pesticides which require very time sensitive processing/storage).
  • Does Keck have a prejudice towards either applied or basic research projects?
  • Barbara is going to check to see if facilities, new or renovations, or equipment, are appropriate for Keck.
    • Keck does not fund endowment.
    • There's nothing that I can find that says that they do not fund construction or renovation, but if we look at their funded projects over the past couple of years for undergraduate research and liberal arts colleges, the construction was limited to a planetarium and to a greenhouse. So, it doesn't seem to me that a large capital request for facilities would be in order.
    • As to renovation, it doesn't appear to me to be high on their hit list either.
    • Equipment, on the other hand, is listed multiple times as fundable. So, equipment related to your project would be very appropriate.

• Things to do:
  • Check that we have addressed all of the feedback (negative and positive) we received from Keck on our last proposal.
  • Tighten-up and possibly expand the list of threads.
    • For this round we're ok with the pesticide and metals, when Amy gets back we should work on the biomolecule entry. Continue looking for other threads particularly with Fonsie.
    • Should we just remove the biomolecules entry? It seems to be generating less interest, will involve fewer departments, and might just confuse the issue. Would it be better/easier to just have Doug talk to Keck about two more well-defined projects?
  • Complete "Selling points" section, match-up items with Keck's criteria.

• Fonsie's work:
  • Condensded matter physics - groups of atoms in regular arrays and the phenonema associated with that. Nanotechnology, thin films, carbon nanotubes?, 100 NM line width lithography, vaccum systems associated with growing thin films, electron transport and temperature, materials in the read/write head and disk coating, i.e. spintronics the replacement for GMR. Not much interdisciplinary stuff, measured the dielectric of polymers, photolithography.