A MODERN BIOLOGY LESSON. WHERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT?

Adieva A. A. , Djamalova S. A., Medzhidova M.G.

Dagestan State University of national economic (DGUNH), Russia

During several previous years, when meeting the students at the first lesson on the general biology, we ask some questions, one of which is "Please, name the theories of life and the origin of man on the Earth that you know". More than 80% of students think that these processes are connected with the Divine, forgetting about any materialistic arguments and theories.

Indeed, recent studies show that the biology of the Newton sense along with the theory of Charles Darwin and the discoveries in the chemical signals mechanics (such as hormones, cytokines, growth factors, etc.) are simply unable to tell us the truth about the human body and life. However, we’ve caught hold of the Newtonian model of the world and do not want to know anything about the invisible world of Einstein’s quantum world, where the substance is the energy and nothing is absolute.

According to quantum physics, atoms are made of energy vortices, each atom is like a spinning and swaying gyroscope, radiating some energy. And since every atom is inherent in its own unique energy spectrum, their compounds (molecules) also emit specific energies. It concerns all material entities, including humans too. The most recent data in the field of molecular physics suggest that, in fact, an atom consists of a number of such infinitely small energy funnels, called quarks, Higgs’ bazon or "God particle".

We can say about the substance, that it consists both of dense particles and the intangible force field, waves. When scientists study atoms as material particles, they look and behave like physical substance. But, if they are described in terms of electric potential and wavelengths they exhibit the characteristics of energy (waves). Einstein's famous equation E=mc² establishes the actual identity between substance and energy, according to which E, some energy, is equal to m (mass) shortly speaking to substance, multiplied by c², the squared speed of light. It means that the world we live in isn’t an accumulation of discrete, dense objects, separated by dead space. The Universe is an indivisible dynamic whole, substance and energy that cannot be regarded as independent elements. In this context it is necessary to shape the students’ scientific worldview, based on the integrity and the unity of nature, its diversity, and the unity of man and nature. A teacher of Biology is enormously responsible for the formation of the student's personality, his or her thinking and outlook and the system of ideological views and attitude to the world.

The guide to teaching biology states that the teacher must clearly understand that there is a big difference between the subject of biology and biological science. The purpose of biological science is to gain new knowledge about nature through research. The aim of the subject "Biology" is to provide knowledge (facts, laws), obtained by biological science. The classes are needed to introduce only the fundamentals of science, overriding scientific problems, but not to overload the students with too much information. Of course, this was reasonable in the times when the only broadcaster of information for pupils and students was a teacher himself, but the current reality shows us that not only the teacher is the source of information, but also numerous books, online resources and media. Often, the information is distorted and has a meaning different from the original source. Here is a small example. The information that the human genetic code had been deciphered appeared in the Internet not long ago and the journalists actively write about it, but here we observe a great terminological mistake. The human genetic code, like the code of all other creatures, was transcribed in the 60’s of the last century. But if to speak about recent discoveries the scientist have deciphered a complete nucleotide sequence of the DNA molecules, i.e. the human genome.

It turns out that in this sea of conflicting information a biology teacher must be a leader, and having regard to the rapidity of life sciences’ development, must also be competent in all aspects of new modern biology. He should own scientific data, as well as pay attention to the so-called "white spots" in science, consider various approaches in solving individual problems, and notice good and bad results in the search of the truth. When it comes to controversial issues that affect the ethical and other aspects, a biology teacher must objectively convey to the students all the existing information of the day and lead them up to the discussion.

For instance the situation with the creation of artificial living cells can be considered in the following manner.

In 2011, for the first time in the history a genomics Craig Venter and a bioengineer Daniel Gibson created an artificial living cell, completely controlled by man-made genome. Scientists have made a significant step toward the creation of artificial life by grafting a computer developed genetic material into the bacterial cell, and thereby creating a new bacterial strain. However, Venter’s work raises profound questions about the origin and essence of life. The emergence of the first synthetic cell colonies became a crucial event from the biological and philosophical point of view. "Since the days of Aristotle, scientists, philosophers and theologians have argued about whether life is something more than a combination of chemicals – someone called it “a soul”, others – “a vital elan”, a life force that distinguishes living creatures from nonliving ones. Venter’s team has proved that a living organism can be obtained if one mixes up inanimate chemicals creating a DNA sequence and connects them with the cell receptor of DNA.

The experimental single-celled microorganism, capable to reproduce itself, opens the way for the manipulation with biological life in a scale that couldn’t have been previously attained. If to speak about previous times, scientists could only modify the pieces of DNA, yielding genetically modified plants and animals. This was a definitely turning point in the relationship between man and nature: because an entire artificial cell with predetermined properties was created for the first time.

Mycoplasma mycoides, the bacterium that causes goats’ mastitis became the material for Venter’s work. The first bacterium that grows and multiplies under the guidance of a synthetic genome and behaves like any other bacterium, M. mycoides, became the result of the study which took 40 million dollars and more than ten years of dedicated work. According to Venter, the new bacterium became “a proof of the thought that, in theory, we can make changes to the entire genome of an organism, add completely new features, remove the functions that we do not need, and create a range of industrial organisms that will direct all their efforts towards fulfilling our mission. While this experiment did not become successful, all these considerations had been theoretical. Now they’re real”.

But the reaction to the news was ambiguous. If Mark Bedau, a philosopher from Reed College, Portland, speaks of “the moment, important to the history of biology and biotechnology”, Julian Savulesku, an associate professor of practical ethics from Oxford, is sure that the scientist “not only artificially copies or modifies its life, but also approaches to the role that is similar with God’s one”. The potential of “an artificial life” – both the good and sinister –is easy to overestimate, the columnist of The Times, Mark Henderson says. Craig Venter assures that his method will lead to the creation of microbes having useful properties. Venter’s critics emphasize the power of “an artificial life” in a different way – putting stress on the potential of biological errors and bioterrorism. However, it is not clear whether this method is effective for more complex organisms than a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides.

In the context of teaching biology it is an acute and perhaps the key issue. Teachers, as professionals, should welcome such discoveries, but going back to the results of the test given at the beginning of the article, 80% of children don’t accept the creation of clones and other genetic manipulations, they are not clear to them because of the moral and ethical principles. Thus, the teacher and students prove to be antagonists on the issues fundamental for children, it leads to the possible latent conflict and to the lack of the interest in the further study of the subject.

On the assumption of the above-stated, it is obvious that the teaching general biology requires at least two conditions:

1. it is necessary to talk to students about new discoveries in the field of new biology because due to their age they are interested in molecular biology;

2. Biology teachers must be competent in their field and, necessarily, must be experienced and have a relatively many-years experience.

Literature:

1. Bruce Lipton. Smart Cells: Biology beliefs. – M.: Sofia, 2011. – 223p.

2. The review of online resources PUB-MED.