![129602-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/129602-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=ljL.sNhCdQL9XBsXPO.rNefar9nBqgxo&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=20240617T031925Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=36937eff8c1044daa076347542d7c506f8f5067dce0e323f694c3952f2257f5a&itok=58ZTuncc)
In this article we consider the current educational needs for science and policy in marine resource management, and we propose a way to address them. The existing literature on cross-disciplinary education in response to pressing environmental problems is vast, particularly in conservation biology. However, actual changes in doctoral-level marine science programs lag behind this literature considerably. This is in part because of concerns about the time investment in cross-disciplinary education and about the job prospects offered by such programs. There is also a more fundamental divide between educational programs that focus on knowledge generation and those that focus on professional development, which can reinforce the gap in communication between scientists and marine resource managers. Ultimately, transdisciplinary graduate education programs need not only to bridge the divide between disciplines, but also between types of knowledge. Our proposed curriculum aligns well with these needs because it does not sacrifice depth for breadth, and it emphasizes collaboration and communication among diverse groups of students, in addition to development of their individual knowledge and skills.
![127952-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/127952-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=zZoHSthSZPinB5.fs92MCvryXfLhlSm8&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=20240617T074636Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=f2a5781a749cd55518ed6aea9bf4d09f334b9c3cd21aceaaeaaaec900857cb30&itok=hyB1kwNR)
Summer bridge programs are designed to help transition students into the college learning environment. Increasingly, bridge programs are being developed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines because of the rigorous content and lower student persistence in college STEM compared with other disciplines. However, to our knowledge, a comprehensive review of STEM summer bridge programs does not exist. To provide a resource for bridge program developers, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on STEM summer bridge programs. We identified 46 published reports on 30 unique STEM bridge programs that have been published over the past 25 years. In this review, we report the goals of each bridge program and whether the program was successful in meeting these goals. We identify 14 distinct bridge program goals that can be organized into three categories: academic success goals, psychosocial goals, and department-level goals. Building on the findings of published bridge reports, we present a set of recommendations for STEM bridge programs in hopes of developing better bridges into college.
![128523-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-04/128523-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=4N6QHRRW7lMHisGoiTRGJbeYnjRyD4cA&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=20240617T031254Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=56913d40dfe9ed36d758732e8d9fad748a9efa7c867fb319ce8a4d19ddf403ac&itok=HlM824gt)
The planetary boundary framework constitutes an opportunity for decision makers to define climate policy through the lens of adaptive governance. Here, we use the DICE model to analyze the set of adaptive climate policies that comply with the two planetary boundaries related to climate change: (1) staying below a CO2 concentration of 550 ppm until 2100 and (2) returning to 350 ppm in 2100. Our results enable decision makers to assess the following milestones: (1) a minimum of 33% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2055 in order to stay below 550 ppm by 2100 (this milestone goes up to 46% in the case of delayed policies); and (2) carbon neutrality and the effective implementation of innovative geoengineering technologies (10% negative emissions) before 2060 in order to return to 350 ppm in 2100, under the assumption of getting out of the baseline scenario without delay. Finally, we emphasize the need to use adaptive path-based approach instead of single point target for climate policy design.
![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/20240616/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240616T220517Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=260d3da4458787fcf9e5e369e620bfd45f85ca88b718f615fdf768fddc8cf028&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/20240616/us-west-2/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240616T091013Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=fbea3171218da2b15660bc966d96c07656c265dc2a21a56961858c7bc7127e2a&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)
![154580-Thumbnail Image.png](https://d1rbsgppyrdqq4.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/styles/width_400/public/2021-09/154580-Thumbnail%20Image.png?versionId=ZLkyHSX_mSTpU.lmMyn6anfYTydYrs8j&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=20240615T055954Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=120&X-Amz-Signature=eed05e117d75854ce5a51920295d9faefc0832375697d2a70e96c905b8e39adb&itok=eq3lUSXX)
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.