As University labs are overflowing with a host of new science initiatives, the curricular review will recommend ways to educate undergraduates about cutting-edge scientific developments.

With a new emphasis on hands-on research and interdisciplinary hires, the underlying meaning of a science education stands to change significantly.

For the non-concentrator, the curricular review could signal the end of teaching students the methods of scientists over the “substance” of the field, focusing on recent scientific developments and historical breakthroughs.

Many faculty hope to throw non-science concentrators into the midst of the controversies with an eye towards understanding the ethical conflicts underpinning recent scientific developments.

Baird Professor of Science and member of the Working Group on Pedagogy Gary J. Feldman says that many science Cores fail to address the “basic issues that everyone should have some understanding of.”

Like University President Lawrence H. Summers’ trope about the woefully ignorant undergraduate who cannot distinguish between a gene and a chromosome, professors are identifying particular issues which they believe any informed citizen ought to know.

“Issues of importance in the physical sciences have to do with nuclear power, energy resources, environmental issues, things like global warming and so forth,” Feldman says. “Students should have a good enough understanding of the basic sciences to understand these.”

Richard M. Losick, head tutor in biochemical sciences and member of the Working Group on Pedagogy describes issues of comparable importance in the life sciences.

He says that Harvard students, whom he describes as the next generation of policy-makers and top corporate officials, should “understand the meaning and root of stem cell research...to make informed and ethical decisions.”

As a result, students will likely see more courses covering the progress of hotly-debated scientific topics.

For concentrators, professors are hoping to engage students in cutting-edge research, both by increasing the number of smaller lab courses and providing more opportunities for students to work independently with faculty members. Professors hope this work would encourage more seniors to write theses, which Losick touts as a student’s “capstone experience.”

While he does not foresee that small research classes will become mandatory for concentrators, he says that he hopes to see more students taking advantage of these opportunities over the course of the next few years.

Executive Director for Undergraduate Education in Molecular and Cellular Biology Robert A. Lue also stresses this point, adding that new lab space, as well as new hires, are imperative.

“We’re running fairly close to capacity in terms of space for teaching,” he says. “My hope is that with the expansions in the Northwest buildings and with Allston, we’ll have more room for engaging students with professors’ research, because right now we simply do not have the space.”

Furthermore, professors say that these research projects will expose students to interdisciplinary science, moving them out of the bounds of the traditional departments.

The new science initiatives cropping up across campus—including systems neuroscience and microbial initiatives—will also increase the number of interdisciplinary hires, and according to Losick, increase the number of integrated courses as well.

Students also stand to see minor shifts in their requirements. The biology department is considering capping all requirements at 14 half courses, a reduction of two half courses from the current honors load.

Ford Professor of the Social Sciences David Pilbeam says that this has been debated in the departments and on the committee, possibly as a result of a later date for declaring concentrations. It is currently unclear which courses will be eliminated from honors requirements.

—Staff writer Alexandra N. Atiya can be reached at atiya@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Risheng Xu can be reached at xu4@fas.harvard.edu.