I think that some very good responses have been posted, and have clarified
the role of accreditation and its distinction from certification. However I
am left with the underlying question of what standards should be applied.
One posting gave a detailed list of topics, while someone else (Jane
Shevtsov I think) observed that some "biologists" don't know anything about
what goes on outside the cell wall. Given that biology is a large and
diverse field, what defines a biologist?
Nature recently published an item followed by intense correspondence about
an institute in China that teaches only genomics and excels in sequencing.
Are those students biologists? And if one of their teachers is a computer
genius who knows nothing about any biology other than the computational
aspects, is he formally qualified?
I have no answers to these issues, only questions. I would certainly be a
black mark on any biology faculty -- in fact when visitors ask about the
flowers that my wife grows in our garden I have to confess that I know
nothing abut plants with more than one cell. But I think that setting the
standards for any accrediation program for biology departments will be a
difficult task.
Bill Silvert
