". . . to communicate . . . the methods by which scientific knowledge has advanced within the past four hundred years, and illustrate the combination of logical analysis, careful observation and experiment, and imaginative insight which has characterized the scientific advances of the past."

This statement, from General Education in a Free Society, forms the cornerstone of the Natural Science program at Harvard. The goal of the program, from its very inception was to give the layman some knowledge of what science is and how the scientist grapples with the problems that challenge him. For this purpose ordinary elementary science courses are totally inadequate. Designed for the science concentrator who gains insight into the problems and philosophy of science only in advanced courses, they dogmatically state a vast number of facts, all necessary for further advancement, but worth little to the layman who will take only one course. Sometimes these facts are never mastered; frequently they are soon forgotten. Except where secondary school knowledge is required, science instruction in Gen. Ed. should sacrifice extensive coverage to gain depth. More can be learned through intensive consideration of a few cases, examined in the manner in which the original discoveries were made, than in a "survey" course in a field.

But the elementary Natural Science courses, with few exceptions, do not follow these principles. The first four, dealing with the physical sciences, attempt to go from Ptolemy to the atomic bomb, broadly surveying the elementary facts of physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Because so much ground is covered, these facts are frequently presented to novice scientists as dogma, with little discussion of the thought that preceded them. As a result, history serves more as a humanistic garnishing than as a means for the illumination of concepts. Especially in atomic physics, the Gen. Ed. courses over-simplify so much that the student may come to feel that scientists only plug numbers in formulae.

But every student wants to know how the H bomb works. To leave time enough for adequate development of physical and chemical principles, the astronomy should be pared from the courses designed for novices. Descriptive astronomy is common knowledge in today's world of popularized science, and the valuable lessons from the history of astronomy can be found in man's first attempts to understand physics or chemistry.

Cases for study should be drawn as much as possible from classical experiments. Only in courses like Natural Science 2 and 4, which assume a secondary school background, is it possible to discuss successfully more than a few significant discoveries, and yet have time to explain the philosophical problems and psychological processes that underlie the factual superstructure. The courses in the biological sciences are different; because they are non-mathematical, they do not present the same pedagogical difficulties found in the physical sciences. For this reason it is easier for them to strike a balance between fact and principle.

Section instruction in all six courses should receive particular attention. Teaching fellows are ordinarily graduate students in science, unfamiliar with the methods of explaining their field on its simplest level. Problem solving, the terror of most students, yet vital for an understanding of fundamental principles is especially hard to teach. Graduate students in the School of Education who are preparing for a career in science teaching would be better suited to conduct sections.

For students with a strong background in secondary school science, much of the present Natural Science is only a re-hash of the material learned before. For this reason another course should be added, dealing almost entirely with the philosophical problems raised in science. Such a course, because it would not need to initiate students to many new facts, could approach the General Education Committee's goal of the ideal Natural Science course: tying together a view of man and his knowledge of the world.