Bio Undergoes Mitosis

After years of during slowly apart, the two subdivisions of the department of Biology--Cellular and Developmental Biology (CDB) and Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (OEB) officially split February 1.

The carefully-planned separation of the departments should have little impact on the undergraduate curriculum, but will enable the new departments to according in their individual officialsstressed last week.

Although some professors were initial worried about the fragmentation that could occur as a result of the split precautionary measures were employed to prevent "losing things between the cracks," John E. Dowling, associate dean of the Faculty of the Life Sciences, said last week.

One such measure was the creation of the position of associate dean of the Faculty for the Life Sciences to coordinate the activities of OEB, CDB and the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department.

"My primary responsibility is for the undergraduate curriculum," Dowling explained adding that his job includes "integrating and coordinating activities between the three departments" and "meeting regularly with the Dean" to provide advice about the needs of the Life Sciences.

The official split "didn't require very much rearranging. Dowling said. The real divergence within the Biology Department began in 1971 when the OEB and CDB committees were setup. During the ensuing years the groups became increasingly, distinct--establishing their own graduate programs and making their own appointments.

But last summer administrative problems broke the last bond holding the two divisions together. The enormous size of the Biology Department had become unwieldy.

Beyond management difficulties, the two divisions had" particular problems soluble only as separate departments," Dowling said, elaborating on an explanatory note which was presented to the faculty in November.

The note stated that a split would help the cellular biology division improve "its attractiveness to both potential faculty and students in a rapidly advancing and highly competitive field."

The cellular biology committee had been unable to attract top professors to fill open positions because it was over-shadowed by the larger and stronger Organismic division.

"As a minority in a large department it was difficult to have things go your way." Peter T. Cherubas, associate professor of Biology, said yesterday. He added that the department's cellular biologists were often out-voted because people from different biological fields did not completely understand their needs.

Cherubas and other professors are very optimistic about the future of the Cellular Biology Department, which will be expanding into new lab space across the street when the Biochemistry Department moves into its new building across the street. The CDB department just recruited a new professor in virology and professors hope his appointment marks the beginning of a new era for the field at Harvard.

The Organismic Division has its share of goals to reach. It is now "easier to address organizational problems with allied institutions" including the Gray Herbarium and the Harvard Forest, Robert M. Woollacott, the department's chairman, said last week.

Currently all of the allied institutions have their own resources, but because of decreasing budgets an opportunity now exists to "move towards common administrative services for support problems," Woollacott added.

The associated institutions "have always been part of the University, "Otto T. Solbrig, professor of Biology maintained, adding that through the years the institutions have "become integrated with the department and teaching functions of the University."

Because of financial difficulties-- brought on by inflation and decreasing endowments--the research activities of the allied institutions have decreased significantly, Solbrig and Dowling said. All members of the Organismic Division hope that the institutions can come closer to the University and regain some of their former research momentum.

The departments will continue to share the undergraduate biology curriculum, so the "split will remain invisible" on the undergraduate level, said Frederick Ausubel, head tutor of Biology. A committee consisting of faculty members from both departments, undergraduates, and graduate students exists, and should prevent difficulties, Ausubel added.

The responsibilities of the head tutor have increased to insure that no friction develops between the two departments and that no educational area in the gap between the departments is ignored.

Before the split some faculty members voiced concern, arguing that Biology is a continuos science and should not be splintered.

Carroll M. Williams, Bussey professor of Biology, believes that there "was an intellectual basis for preserving the status quo" and that the split of the departments could have adverse effects.

But Dowling's appointment as associate dean. Williams said has made him "very optimistic" about the future of the two departments. The awareness and concern displayed in trying to avoid potential problems has convinced Williams and others that the venture will succeed.

Although some professors were initial worried about the fragmentation that could occur as a result of the split precautionary measures were employed to prevent "losing things between the cracks," John E. Dowling, associate dean of the Faculty of the Life Sciences, said last week.

One such measure was the creation of the position of associate dean of the Faculty for the Life Sciences to coordinate the activities of OEB, CDB and the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department.

"My primary responsibility is for the undergraduate curriculum," Dowling explained adding that his job includes "integrating and coordinating activities between the three departments" and "meeting regularly with the Dean" to provide advice about the needs of the Life Sciences.

The official split "didn't require very much rearranging. Dowling said. The real divergence within the Biology Department began in 1971 when the OEB and CDB committees were setup. During the ensuing years the groups became increasingly, distinct--establishing their own graduate programs and making their own appointments.

But last summer administrative problems broke the last bond holding the two divisions together. The enormous size of the Biology Department had become unwieldy.

Beyond management difficulties, the two divisions had" particular problems soluble only as separate departments," Dowling said, elaborating on an explanatory note which was presented to the faculty in November.

The note stated that a split would help the cellular biology division improve "its attractiveness to both potential faculty and students in a rapidly advancing and highly competitive field."

The cellular biology committee had been unable to attract top professors to fill open positions because it was over-shadowed by the larger and stronger Organismic division.

"As a minority in a large department it was difficult to have things go your way." Peter T. Cherubas, associate professor of Biology, said yesterday. He added that the department's cellular biologists were often out-voted because people from different biological fields did not completely understand their needs.

Cherubas and other professors are very optimistic about the future of the Cellular Biology Department, which will be expanding into new lab space across the street when the Biochemistry Department moves into its new building across the street. The CDB department just recruited a new professor in virology and professors hope his appointment marks the beginning of a new era for the field at Harvard.

The Organismic Division has its share of goals to reach. It is now "easier to address organizational problems with allied institutions" including the Gray Herbarium and the Harvard Forest, Robert M. Woollacott, the department's chairman, said last week.

Currently all of the allied institutions have their own resources, but because of decreasing budgets an opportunity now exists to "move towards common administrative services for support problems," Woollacott added.

The associated institutions "have always been part of the University, "Otto T. Solbrig, professor of Biology maintained, adding that through the years the institutions have "become integrated with the department and teaching functions of the University."

Because of financial difficulties-- brought on by inflation and decreasing endowments--the research activities of the allied institutions have decreased significantly, Solbrig and Dowling said. All members of the Organismic Division hope that the institutions can come closer to the University and regain some of their former research momentum.

The departments will continue to share the undergraduate biology curriculum, so the "split will remain invisible" on the undergraduate level, said Frederick Ausubel, head tutor of Biology. A committee consisting of faculty members from both departments, undergraduates, and graduate students exists, and should prevent difficulties, Ausubel added.

The responsibilities of the head tutor have increased to insure that no friction develops between the two departments and that no educational area in the gap between the departments is ignored.

Before the split some faculty members voiced concern, arguing that Biology is a continuos science and should not be splintered.

Carroll M. Williams, Bussey professor of Biology, believes that there "was an intellectual basis for preserving the status quo" and that the split of the departments could have adverse effects.

But Dowling's appointment as associate dean. Williams said has made him "very optimistic" about the future of the two departments. The awareness and concern displayed in trying to avoid potential problems has convinced Williams and others that the venture will succeed.