![128442-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/128442-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=QUmoP1PwUnf.lPDjhglt1bhgbbPDREqG&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240617/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240617T155946Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=456cdcea4598f142c59783e9a9dca56ba0046ccae32b196755938eee3728ba94&itok=pJ0Z4LUu)
Integrating research experiences into undergraduate life sciences curricula in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) can meet national calls for education reform by giving students the chance to “do science.” In this article, we provide a step-by-step practical guide to help instructors assess their CUREs using best practices in assessment. We recommend that instructors first identify their anticipated CURE learning outcomes, then work to identify an assessment instrument that aligns to those learning outcomes and critically evaluate the results from their course assessment. To aid instructors in becoming aware of what instruments have been developed, we have also synthesized a table of “off-the-shelf” assessment instruments that instructors could use to assess their own CUREs. However, we acknowledge that each CURE is unique and instructors may expect specific learning outcomes that cannot be assessed using existing assessment instruments, so we recommend that instructors consider developing their own assessments that are tightly aligned to the context of their CURE.
![129500-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/129500-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=LZdFP8AF6jUPxfrnImxPgloOJu2zYN7v&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240617/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240617T140352Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=b0c84c6a5e14d33fe03badc4bc5a4cdc629e021ced2e79f7348a05c2074a6e02&itok=2U8DwNQs)
Although gender gaps have been a major concern in male-dominated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines such as physics and engineering, the numerical dominance of female students in biology has supported the assumption that gender disparities do not exist at the undergraduate level in life sciences. Using data from 23 large introductory biology classes for majors, we examine two measures of gender disparity in biology: academic achievement and participation in whole-class discussions. We found that females consistently underperform on exams compared with males with similar overall college grade point averages. In addition, although females on average represent 60% of the students in these courses, their voices make up less than 40% of those heard responding to instructor-posed questions to the class, one of the most common ways of engaging students in large lectures. Based on these data, we propose that, despite numerical dominance of females, gender disparities remain an issue in introductory biology classrooms. For student retention and achievement in biology to be truly merit based, we need to develop strategies to equalize the opportunities for students of different genders to practice the skills they need to excel.
![154733-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-09/154733-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=j95HQeP8bbN9VzESg_oMtRp_LDKUIqWa&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240616/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240616T022845Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=102d6ced6d3e05ec96a40fa369c29fad7f3ed3f2c9cfdd6db43147134db8ab17&itok=B4RN2Am7)
Bioethics is an important aspect of the core competency of biology of understanding the relationship between science and society, but because of the controversial nature of the topics covered in bioethics courses, different groups of students may experience identity conflicts or discomfort when learning about them. However, no previous studies have investigated the impact of undergraduate bioethics students’ experiences in bioethics courses on their opinions and comfort. To fill this gap in knowledge, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students’ attitudes about and comfort when learning abortion, gene editing, and physician assisted suicide, as well as how their gender, religious, and political identity influence their attitudes and changes in their attitudes after instruction. We found that religious students were less supportive of gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide than nonreligious students, non-liberal students were less supportive of abortion and physician assisted suicide than liberal students, and women were less supportive of abortion than men. Additionally, we found that religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, and non-liberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. When asked how their comfort could have been improved, those who felt that their peers or instructors could have done something to increase their comfort most commonly cited that including additional unbiased materials or incorporating materials and discussions that cover both sides of every controversial issue would have helped them to feel more comfortable when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Finally, we found that students who were less comfortable learning about abortion and physician assisted suicide were less likely to participate in discussions regarding those topics. Our findings show that students in different groups not only tend to have different support for controversial topics like gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, but they also feel differentially comfortable when learning about them, which in turn impacts their participation. We hope that this work helps instructors to recognize the importance of their students’ comfort to their learning in bioethics courses, and from this study, they can take away the knowledge that students feel their comfort could be most improved by the incorporation of additional inclusive materials and course discussions regarding the controversial topics covered in the course.
![128810-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/128810-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=TFzhTUVslqKcFgtoy6F.Cjka3xnHTi_2&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240615/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240615T203617Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=faed2bc3cdb9055cab5ce7772626ee88a40a59ac1c28465702e2a1c1b634678c&itok=8K2RBq0Z)
Hydrophobic platinum(II)-5,10,15,20-tetrakis-(2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorophenyl)-porphyrin (PtTFPP) was physically incorporated into micelles formed from poly(ε-caprolactone)-block-poly(ethylene glycol) to enable the application of PtTFPP in aqueous solution. Micelles were characterized using dynamic light scattering (DLS) and atomic force microscopy (AFM) to show an average diameter of about 140 nm. PtTFPP showed higher quantum efficiency in micellar solution than in tetrahydrofuran (THF) and dichloromethane (CH2Cl2). PtTFPP in micelles also exhibited higher photostability than that of PtTFPP suspended in water. PtTFPP in micelles exhibited good oxygen sensitivity and response time. This study provided an efficient approach to enable the application of hydrophobic oxygen sensors in a biological environment.
![128661-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/128661-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=K4fjZtdSB.xPhwGYHYV5altG8FnRGlan&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIASBVQ3ZQ42ZLA5CUJ/20240615/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240615T165137Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=ca66a89407cc56f872081c76f9a3fe9da381cbf5a7916ef6140fbb1694979c2f&itok=z61rLb-1)
Single-cell studies of phenotypic heterogeneity reveal more information about pathogenic processes than conventional bulk-cell analysis methods. By enabling high-resolution structural and functional imaging, a single-cell three-dimensional (3D) imaging system can be used to study basic biological processes and to diagnose diseases such as cancer at an early stage. One mechanism that such systems apply to accomplish 3D imaging is rotation of a single cell about a fixed axis. However, many cell rotation mechanisms require intricate and tedious microfabrication, or fail to provide a suitable environment for living cells. To address these and related challenges, we applied numerical simulation methods to design new microfluidic chambers capable of generating fluidic microvortices to rotate suspended cells. We then compared several microfluidic chip designs experimentally in terms of: (1) their ability to rotate biological cells in a stable and precise manner; and (2) their suitability, from a geometric standpoint, for microscopic cell imaging. We selected a design that incorporates a trapezoidal side chamber connected to a main flow channel because it provided well-controlled circulation and met imaging requirements. Micro particle-image velocimetry (micro-PIV) was used to provide a detailed characterization of flows in the new design. Simulated and experimental results demonstrate that a trapezoidal side chamber represents a viable option for accomplishing controlled single cell rotation. Further, agreement between experimental and simulated results confirms that numerical simulation is an effective method for chamber design.