{shortcode-c93c86e4678f4be504c64ea2f7b5a8af60529eeb}

In the battle for its public image, Harvard has put its scientific contributions front and center. And for good reason: From lifesaving drugs to diagnostic tools that catch disease in its earliest stages, practical innovations like these are worth celebrating.

So why do its undergraduate courses so often fall short of reflecting this real-world scientific spirit? Many still rely on rote problem sets and formulaic labs instead of problem-driven work that mirrors how Harvard’s best science is done. To match the brilliance of its research with an equally forward-looking pedagogy, the University ought to actively bring applications of sciences into the classroom.

The sciences can be distilled into two main groups. Basic science, or bench research, focuses on understanding fundamental disciplines, including the discovery of genes critical to cancer or antibiotics instrumental in the treatment of bacterial infections. On the other hand, translational science focuses on turning benchside and clinical discoveries into tangible interventions to prevent and treat diseases, yielding devices such as continuous glucose monitors for individuals with diabetes and spirometers used to test for asthma.

As the average life sciences student embarks on their path through one of six biology concentrations, they confront a stream of coursework that teaches biological, chemical, and physical principles. And yet, the translational lens is often missing: Course content lacks clear, applied motivations, save for the occasional problem set question or final project, which feel like feeble attempts to relate coursework to the real world. At the College, especially in required pre-med classes such as LIFESCI 1A: “An Integrated Introduction to the Life Sciences” and Chem 17: “Principles of Organic Chemistry,” the grander vision for ingenuity is lost in the chase for a grade. Thought-provoking applications exist as brief mentions rather than central foci.

Instead, it is the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences that succeeds at motivating the translational and foundational simultaneously. Courses like BE 131: “Neuroengineering” and ESE 50: “The Fluid Earth” demonstrate technical rigor and real-world application side by side. Life science coursework at SEAS is often framed by clinical case studies or connections to patient experiences. And the exploratory project-driven labs at the Science and Engineering Complex do not compare to the prescriptive recipes that students are handed to complete across the river. Even introductory SEAS courses, like ES 53: “Quantitative Physiology,” pair biological principles with device design.

How does a Harvard student interested in biology, then, endeavor to explore the translational sciences or discover their interest in innovation? The answer is that most of the time, they simply do not. Without a predisposition toward engineering, taking a course at SEAS is a deferred priority to core concentration requirements. And for those on pre-med tracks, the opportunity to venture into electives that embrace the applied usually comes only late into junior and senior year, if at all.

To solve the first problem, SEAS and FAS must more closely integrate their class offerings. Courses jointly taught between SEAS and FAS, like Stat 109A: “Introduction to Data Science,” come close, providing both applied and foundational perspectives. Courses labeled “ENG-SCI” are another step in the right direction, which tend to be smaller, more hands-on classes. Part of the change begins with stronger nudges from concentration and peer advisors, urging students to ask themselves: What do I want to create during my time at Harvard?

Most importantly, classes that cater to large populations of Harvard life science students must do a better job at igniting students’ interests in real-world applications. There is little tradeoff between making a course more practical and covering core principles. In reality, doing so might actually make it more engaging and empower students to consider whether the translational or basic science path — or a combination of both— is best suited to their interests.

It turns out the translational gap exists to some extent across major institutions at Harvard. Many powerhouse institutions seem to exist in somewhat disjoint spaces. The Kempner Institute, which exists on the 6th floor of the SEC, was launched by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and focuses on uniting brain science and machine learning. Yet, the institute doesn’t seem to collaborate formally on a regular basis with the Department of Bioinformatics at Longwood, barring the overlap of a single faculty member.

This is not to suggest that Harvard ought to overwhelm itself with official collaborations. But when the impetus falls on individual faculty —who are especially overwhelmed given the current political moment — meaningful collaboration toward translation indeed becomes more difficult. And it may very well be that fostering these initiatives can help recruit more opportunities and inspire external funding, which in turn makes more science possible.

Harvard generates extraordinary science. Students deserve courses that show them how to use science to help people live extraordinary lives.

Ambika Grover ‘27, a Crimson Editorial Editor, is a joint concentrator in Molecular & Cellular Biology and Statistics in Leverett House.