Teaching Biological Physics
Submitting Institution
University of CambridgeUnit of Assessment
PhysicsSummary Impact Type
SocietalResearch Subject Area(s)
Physical Sciences: Other Physical Sciences
Chemical Sciences: Physical Chemistry (incl. Structural)
Biological Sciences: Biochemistry and Cell Biology
Summary of the impact
Material has been prepared for the Institute of Physics (IOP) to
disseminate freely to universities worldwide who wish to incorporate
material into the undergraduate physics curriculum. Donald was invited to
lead this project — funded by the IOP — as Project Director, on the basis
of her research at the University of Cambridge and leadership in the
field. Beyond oversight of the teaching material and producing one lecture
herself, she has been active in disseminating the challenges and
excitement of the field to a wide range of audiences beyond academics
through talks and online. This material is being accessed worldwide by
many different universities. Within the UK, a number of universities are
either using the course material directly or indirectly in their lecture
course development, or are pointing students to the website as an
additional resource.
Underpinning research
Professor (now Dame) Athene Donald has been a pioneer in biological
physics research in the UK. She joined the University of Cambridge
Department of Physics in 1983 where she has held a Professorship since
1998. Her research on biopolymers started during the 1980s, with very
significant advances in the area of starch granule structure being made
during the 1990s in a series of papers [e.g. 1-2]. She co-organised (with
a pair of industrialists) two major international interdisciplinary
meetings held in Cambridge in 1996 and 2000, involving both academics and
industrialists with backgrounds across the research spectrum, from plant
scientists to food manufacturers. Each conference resulted in the
publication of a book that she co-edited. The work using microfocus X-ray
scattering (SAXS) [1] to confirm the radial orientation of the amylopectin
chains formed the basis of a News and Views article in Nature,
highlighting the significance of the findings. The model revealed by SAXS
was capable of identifying subtle differences with composition and between
species and led to a successful collaboration with plant scientists at the
John Innes Centre in Norwich e.g. [3] which enabled her to gain a broad
appreciation of this interdisciplinary interface and be comfortable with
the biochemical language and an appreciation of genetics and the issues
surrounding genetic modification. Around this time, the late 1990s, she
also served on BBSRC's Strategy Board and the Governing Body of the
Institute of Food Physics, all work which familiarised herself with
disciplines removed from physics, central to her ability to take oversight
of a broad-ranging topic such as biological physics teaching. Her more
recent work on protein aggregation ensures that she has a firm grasp of
another of the key families of biological molecules [5].
Dr Pietro Cicuta become a Research Associate in the Department of Physics
in 2003, became a Research Fellow in 2004 and was appointed to a
Lectureship in 2006. His research focusses on soft matter and biological
physics, with a particular emphasis on amphiphilic molecules such as
lipids, including their interfacial properties [4-6]. By studying the
thermodynamics of the molecules at interfaces it is possible to establish
what the fluctuation spectrum of lipid bilayers should be in different
circumstances and relate that to experimental data on both model and
biologically-relevant bilayers. In particular by working with giant
vesicles that mimic the composition of biological cell membranes, it
becomes possible to understand the coupling between the phase behaviour
and the membrane properties. This interplay between the thermodynamics and
the response of the cell membrane is at the heart of the 6 lectures that
Cicuta has contributed to the project.
Both Donald and Cicuta have broad experience in a wide range of
biological physics arenas, covering the major classes of
biologically-relevant molecules (with the exception of the nucleic acids).
Due to their complementary interests they have also worked together and in
2007 wrote a joint invited review of microrheology as relevant to the
study of soft matter and biophysics.
References to the research
1 TA Waigh, MF Butler, I Hopkinson, F Heidelbach, C Riekel and AM Donald
— 1997 — Macromolecules 30, 3813-20. Analysis of the native
structure of starch granules with X-ray microfocus diffraction, DOI:
10.1021/ma970075w.
2 PJ Jenkins and AM Donald — 1998. Carb Res 308 133-147.
Gelatinisation of starch: a combined SAXS/WAXS/DSC and SANS study. DOI:
10.1016/S0008-6215(98)00079-2
3 AM Donald, TA Waigh, PJ Jenkins, MJ Gidley, M Debet and A Smith, in
Starch: structure and function. eds AM Donald, PJ Frazier and P Richmond,
RSC 1997, 172-179. Internal structure of starch granules revealed by
scattering studies. (Available on request ISBN 0-85404-742-5).
4 AR Honerkamp-Smith, P Cicuta, MD Collins, SL Veatch, M Nijs, M Schick
and SL Keller — 2008. Biophysical Journal 95, 236-246. Line
tensions, correlation lengths, and critical exponents in lipid membranes
near critical points DOI: 10.1529/biophysj.107.128421
5 P Cicuta, SL Keller and SL Veatch — 2007. J. Phys. Chem. B 111,
3328-3331. Diffusion of Liquid Domains in Lipid Bilayer Membranes DOI:
10.1021/jp0702088
6 Y-ZYoon, H Hong, A Brown, DC Kim, DJ Kang, VL Lew, and PCicuta — 2009.
Biophysical Journal 97, 1606-1615. Flickering Analysis of
Erythrocyte Mechanical Properties: Dependence on Oxygenation Level, Cell
Shape, and Hydration Level DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.06.028
Details of the impact
Within the UK Physics community Donald has a unique breadth of expertise
in biological physics, which made her a natural choice to be the inaugural
chair of the IOP's Biological Physics Group. This group was set up when
the IOP felt, in the wake of the EPSRC International Review of Physics
(2005) and the Wakeham Review (in 2008), that it was desirable that the
growing UK community in this field was appropriately reflected within the
Institute's groups. For the same reason — and also as a natural
consequence of these two reports — when the IOP raised money from its
resources (around £70k has so far been injected into the project) to
initiate the preparation of teaching material to broaden the undergraduate
curriculum in the UK, they invited Donald to take the lead in oversight of
the project as Project Director. This is part of their desire to see
biological physics fully recognized within the undergraduate provision of
Physics Departments as part of teaching best practice.
The aim of the project is to produce material to facilitate the
introduction of the topic of Biological Physics into the undergraduate
curriculum, particularly for those departments which lack specific
expertise in the field on their staff. Starting in 2009, when the IOP
first approached Donald to put together a team of writers to create a body
of work, Donald and Cicuta have been involved in the production of
material. All the material now on the website has been checked and
overseen by Donald. There is now a significant body of new material which
has been uploaded onto the IOP's dedicated site. All of the material
currently available is free to anyone who registers, from anywhere in the
world (1). To date, the site has been visited more than 25,000 times, with
more than 8000 unique visitors and an average of 1100 page visits per
month.
The logic for producing this material was based on the comments in the
Wakeham Review which stated:
- `it is essential that students continue to be exposed to areas of
the subject which are particularly applicable in the 21st
century such as biophysics/medicine....
- physics students in many departments get regrettably little
exposure, if any, to modern soft matter physics and biophysics.'
The IOP took the lead in trying to change this situation by committing
£70k to this project, having established — through a questionnaire sent to
all heads of physics departments in the UK — that there was an unmet need
that academics felt could be addressed by the preparation of suitable
material. Responses to the question as to whether departments thought such
material would be useful included (15 Physics Departments responded) 1) `We
would welcome suggestions for how biological physics could be used to
enrich the physics syllabus. There are many biological examples that
could be used to teach core physics while introducing the idea that
physicists can contribute to the life sciences.' 2) `Any
assistance in the development of material would be appreciated.' 3)
`Yes, we could well be interested — we would certainly be more
interested in teaching such a course if the IOP could make course
materials available to us, as we do not have substantial staff expertise
in this area'. These responses indicated a clear enthusiasm for the
project to go ahead. Donald was involved in the project from the outset,
assisted by a project management team who collectively made decisions on
the topics to be covered and the authors to be invited to write each
contribution.
Plans were sufficiently far advanced that in May 2011 a launch meeting
was held, although at that time few lectures were actually available
online (the IOP and IOPP — the Publishing arm of the IOP- have taken
charge of all preparation of material to make web-ready). The launch was
attended by around 40 people (including heads of departments) from
different departments within the UK. Donald described both the project and
the launch on her blog and has subsequently promoted the projects through
articles in the Guardian and on the IOP's own website.
The online lectures- written by about half a dozen carefully chosen
individuals from within the UK — have been viewed over 13,700 times. With
her expertise in polysaccharides, Donald contributed the lecture on
polysaccharides which has received 2399 individual page visits, as well as
the introduction and overview; Cicuta wrote 6 lectures on thermodynamics
and lipids which have in total received 4877 individual page visits. The
lectures, comprising PowerPoint presentations, text, references and model
questions with solutions, are designed to be used in a variety of ways as
part of the philosophy of making the material as useful as possible to
departments: some simply want examples that can be added in to existing
lecture courses to make it easier to incorporate some basic material into
their curriculum, others want to introduce whole modules. Which route each
department takes depends on their course structure and the expertise they
have on their teaching staff. The aim is to make sure that all UK
departments introduce some material into their teaching, although
currently the IOP have ruled out making any of the material a formal
requirement of departmental accreditation, because that would take a long
time to put into practice.
Within 6 months of launch there were an average number of over 1000 hits
per month, with North America having the largest traffic, followed by
Northern Europe (including the UK) and Southern Asia. Thus, although the
project was designed with UK academia in mind, it is clearly reaching far
beyond this initial target audience.
Already it is clear that more departments are introducing this topic into
their courses, either simply prompted by the very clear message the IOP is
giving out, or actually using the material being produced. For instance,
in both Durham and Bristol new courses in biophysics/biological physics
are being constructed which are accessing the concepts and material on the
website. In Manchester, where there is a course in the 1st year
but it precedes student exposure to thermodynamics, the course lecturer
said `During the last semester I directed the students in our first
year course on biological physics to look at the IOP web site during the
first lecture. Most of the lecture material is probably too hard for our
first year (they do not cover the 2nd law of thermodynamics until second
year), but they will profit from some of the videos and it is good to
establish in their minds that biological physics is 'real physics' at an
early stage.' The comment from Bristol was 'First of all, what
an incredible resource! I feel like I've only just skimmed the surface
of it, as every time I look at the notes, I find something else that is
useful!....As this is my first time developing a lecture course from
scratch, I was pretty overwhelmed. What the biological physics pages
have done is given me confidence that a) I'm teaching the right things
(as most of the syllabus I came up with on my own is covered by these
lectures) and b) I have the foundations of a series of lectures that I
can personalise with examples of my own... thank you (and to all
involved) for doing these! It's taken a huge amount of stress away from
me and has actually turned a job I was dreading into a slightly more
manageable task! Other universities have reported using the site
`for inspiration' as to what to include, and as a source of figures to
insert into their lectures. To date 5 universities have confirmed they are
utilising the material in some form or other (Nottingham, Durham, Surrey,
Manchester and Bristol) and Hull has indicated they will as soon as an
appropriate course is rewritten.
Sources to corroborate the impact
1) Project website http://biologicalphysics.iop.org/
where all the teaching material can be found.
2) Compilation of responses to initial questionnaire sent out by the IOP
The project has been described in various blogs by Donald:
3) http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2011/05/18/a-work-in-progress/
4) and on the Guardian most recently http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/apr/08/schrodinger-understanding-physcis-life
.
5) A video describing the project can be found at
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2011/dec/08/physics-and-biology-a-match-made-in-heaven
and this site also contains a video about the protein aggregation work and
Cicuta's work on lipids.
6) Emails from the Associate Director, Education and Planning, IOP,
regarding metrics
7) Statement from Manchester course lecturer
8) Statement from Bristol lecturer writing new course
9) Statement from Durham lecturer
10) Statement from Nottingham Lecturer