Introduction to Biology, Plants and Animals, SC 139, is a broad overview of the science of
living things that concentrates mostly on the larger organisms. This is a course for non-science majors,
intended to give an acquaintance with the topics. It is not an in-depth biology course and is not part
of a sequence: there are three SC-level biology courses, but they are each stand-alone courses that look
at different aspects of the science. However, SC 139 is not intended as a "from scratch" course -
studentsare expected to have some basic understanding of simple scientific concepts, such as cells,
molecules, et cetera. We will build upon your basic science vocabulary but try not to get too technical.
Often, living things will be presented with a view toward their impact on humans, or vice-versa.
Laboratories are set up to present concepts for discussion and/or animals and plants for hand-on
investigation, and please note that this course does expect students (in groups) to perform dissections.
When you have successfully completed this course, you should have an overview understanding
of the basic workings of animals and plants, as well as the differences between the major groups. You
should have a basic working knowledge of how biologists think the world works, including current
theories on the development of Life and on the different ideas connected to evolution. You should
also increase your biology vocabulary and general understanding of basic biological processes, including
those at work in and around human beings. We hope that you will better be able to follow current
events related to biology, such as medical breakthroughs, ecological issues, and such topics in lower-level science education as young people you know may be exposed to.
The "book" we will be using is
available online
and as a CD-ROM.
There is no official "hard" textbook.
Paper print-outs
are available from Mr. McDarby - ask in class.
Paper Proposals (2) 5 Points Each - 10 Points - 1%
Research Papers (2) 100 Points Each - 200 Points - 20%
Notice that the course grades add up to 1000 total Points, so each 10 Points gained (or lost) is the
equivalent of 1% of your final grade, which will be figured this way:
Lectures are not marked for attendance per se, but exams derive much more from the lectures
than the textbooks, so it is extremely difficult to do well if you miss many classes. Laboratory classes
all have associated marked reports, so missing them will lead to lost points. Make-ups are usually
possible if set up immediately - several labs use perishable materials and may not be available if you
wait too long. Allmarkedassignments and exams are scheduled in advance and those dates are on
these sheets - hang on to them and/or mark your personal calendar. Examconflicts (including lab
quizzes) may be easily resolved as long as they are brought up prior to the exams - call or see or at
the very least get a message (with a return phone number) to Mr. McDarby as soon as you know
that you may miss a date! Resolutions are much easier if dealt with before due dates, even if only
by an hour. If you leave the matter until after the exam, onlymedical and other emergencies with
documentation will allow you to make up and exam. Make-ups must be arranged before exams are
passed back, which is usually within a week of the exam.
Due materials (lab reports, proposals, papers) may be handed in past the due date, but will lose
5% per FMCC day, down to 25% for a complete and appropriately done but really late assignment.
However, proposals will not be accepted on or after the due date of the paper they are for, and NO
MATERIALS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER MAY 9TH.
This course requires papers, using your choice of subjects but addressing a specific topic
taken from the list found elsewhere in the handouts. These papers will include at least four type-written, double-spaced, reasonably-margined pages of text (text does not include titles, reference
lists, or empty space). Most of the paper will be made up of your own collected and restated research
on your subject, applied to your chosen topic.
The papers must be based upon at least four proper references,listed at the end of the paper
with the format given below. Note: things like abstract compilations, dictionaries, and encyclopedias
are not considered proper references - you must list them if you used them, but they will not count
toward the paper's required four. In addition, you need at least one
reference from 2005 or later.
It is required that, by the dates given in the course schedule, you hand in proposals for your
papers. These can be handwritten. Three important items will be in your proposals: 1) Which of
the listed topics (see topics sheet) have you chosen to address? 2) What subject are you going to
research, applied to that topic? 3) What two references have you found that you expect to help you
write your paper? Here, you need to give specific references, but not in full paper format. Proposals
will be returned promptly with advisory comments and sometimes reference suggestions. They may
have to be redone if unclear, or with a subject that can't fit the topic. Late proposals will be accepted
only up to the due date of their papers.
It is very important that your papers be proofread - the seemingly small deductions for
spelling, grammar, and organizational errors can really add up in a mistake-filled paper. You can
submit papers early, up to three days before the due date, for precorrection. All mistakes,
including everything that would be marked on a completed paper, will be marked, and the paper will
be available for you to pick up and correct. If leaving papers in the lab box or mailbox, include a note
indicating that you want precorrection. Usually, there's only a day turnaround for
precorrection. You
can submit a paper early as many times as you wish, but after the due date, marks are final - you
cannot redo a paper after the deadline has passed and it's been returned to you.
If you are running into difficulties, keep Mr. McDarby informed - he may be able to help.
Perhaps more importantly, if he's made aware throughout the process, he may give you extra time to
finish the paper, which is almost never true if the first he hears about problems is on or just before the
due date of the paper!
Minimum four pages of text, double-spaced (leaves room for notes and corrections) - make a
note if your word processor's idea of "double-spaced" looks unusually wide. Margins should not be too
wide. Put things in your own words - use direct quotes sparingly. If you do quote, you should tell
who's being quoted and why they matter - attribute the quote (and footnote it, too).
General information or information available from multiple sources does not require
footnotes, so don't overdo it. Specific or controversial information, or direct quotes, things that you
could only have gotten from particular sources, do require footnotes.
Footnote Format: at the end of
the information / passage, put the last name of the lead author from your reference (your reference list
at the end is alphabetized by author's last name, so a reader can easily find the full reference title if they
want to). No other information is needed unless you have more than one reference from that author -
then, use year of publication or second author or first words of title to specify which reference you're
footnoting. References without authors can be footnoted with the organization,
or the first words of the title, followed by
dots (...).
At least 4 proper references required. At least one must
be recent.
NOTE: These papers require a specific
science-style reference listing
format!!!!
References are listed as follows. Any source used for information, whether used for a footnote,
whether "proper" or not, should be listed. The entire list is alphabetized by author's last name or title if
no author is listed. Make notes in your list for information that was not available.
Paper Sources: In this order: Author(s), last name first, full names, full list; Year (only) of
publication; Title of actual reference; reference source if part of bigger whole, like a magazine article
or a separately-written book chapter would be; Volumeand Issue Numbers for a magazine, Date if
a newspaper, or Publisher if a book; Page Numbers if applicable. If using a "paper" source from a
database, name the database; or if over the Internet, give the address and date accessed.
Internet Sources: Author(s), last names first, full names, full list (if no author, give the website
organization; if neither, you shouldn't use the source); Year of writing and/or most recent update; Title
of specific web page accessed; Web site name/ support organization if page is part of larger site
(information pages usually are); Full Internet address; Date(s) that you accessed the information.
Other Sources: Check with Mr. McDarby on formats for unusual references. Don't make
assumptions!
Topic 1.) For some small group of living things (a species or other small group), you will give a brief
review of the types of research being done on that group purely for the sake of learning about those
organisms. This last detail makes this topic different from Topic 2, below. It is important that this be
a paper about research being done, and not a general "informational" article about your chosen organisms.
Common mistakes for this topic: People ignore that this is specifically a paper about research -
they get sidetracked with general information about the organisms instead. Sometimes it's hard to find
enough research-oriented information, even about "popular" organisms.
Topic 2.)
For some small group of living things (a species or other small group), you will give a brief
review of the types of research being done on that group to gain knowledge with broad applications.
This last detail makes this topic different from Topic 1, above. Examples of this type of research would
be the use of yeasts to study cell reproduction, mice for toxicity, fruit flies for genetics, roundworms for
embryology, etc. It is important that this be a paper about research being done, and not a general
"informational" article about your chosen organisms.
Common mistakes for this topic: As in Topic 1, people ignore that this is specifically a paper
about research - they get sidetracked with general information about the organisms instead. They may
also get thinking more about the general type of research, combining different types of organisms instead
of focussing on one.
Topic 3.) Living individuals consist of many functional systems that perform their basic life functions,
working with other systems to keep the organism alive. For this topic, you will review the workings of
one such system, then explain how it integrates into the other systems in the organism.
Common mistakes for this topic: People often start this paper with no really clear idea of what
they're supposed to be doing - you have to understand what a functional system is to review one.
Sometimes a system is picked that is very technical to explain. Often little space is given to how the
system relates to the other systems, a very important aspect of this paper.
Topic 4.) Comparison of two books on the same animal or plant-related topic. These books should
look, to a glance, like they're on exactly the same subject. Your job is to compare them - how are they
similar? How are they different? This particular topic does not require four references - just the two
books.
Common mistakes for this topic: People sometimes forget to tell at the beginning of their
papers what their books are; they get bogged down just reviewing the books, and give almost no real
comparisons. Sometimes its clear that they didn't really understand the books, which makes it hard to
compare them!
Topic 5.) A current ethical issue that involves animals or plants. These are the moral issues that
surround decisions about living things. You might find proper subjects in such areas as medicine,
research, public policy or the environment. You must find a subject that has at least two sides, and you
must present all sides of the issue adequately. You may express your own opinion is you wish, but all
sides must be treated fairly despite your personal feelings.
Common mistakes for this topic: People pick a subject they feel too strongly about, so the
"other side" is presented very poorly; these papers may be difficult to organize properly - people
sometimes just go over and over the same territory.
Topic 6.) The overall history of a some aspect of animal/plant biology theory or research. You need
a subject that not only has a history, but one whose history you can actually track. Give early background
and descriptions, discoveries, political / social aspects and impacts, all in a historical framework,
including development of new ideas.
Common mistakes for this topic: Finding such information is almost impossible for some
subjects. You need a subject that: has a significant history, with definite developments that can be
connected to dates, and as such is manageable in a fairly short paper. Also, although you would think
otherwise for something that's essentially a timeline, many people can't seem to organize these papers
properly.
Topic 7.) In many ways the living world is a study in associations and relationships: predators and prey,
disease organisms and hosts, symbioses, etc. For this paper, you'll do a comprehensive review of such
a relationship, including especially those traits of each organism that probably evolved purely due to the
relationship (an example: cuckoos lay their eggs in other birds' nests, and other adults raise the young
cuckoos. Young cuckoos have evolved the behavior of "kicking out" non-cuckoos from those nests, and
birds in areas where there have been cuckoos for a long time have evolved the ability to recognize and
reject foreign eggs from their nests - without cuckoos, there was no need for this trait).
Common mistakes for this topic: It can be very difficult to find enough information for this
topic, and to address the evolutionary "dance" required here.
Paper doesn't really address chosen
topic, or misses much of the topic's requirements.
Organization of the paper is poor - things are discussed in widely separate sections. NOTE:outline, and don't be afraid to use a word processor to move things around.
Points you've already discussed are repeated.
Plagiarism - source material is copied with no or very little attempt to put into your own words.
(You need to rephrase all material in your own
words.You
are allowed to quote, but only occasionally and not without
explaining who is being quoted and why they are being
quoted!)
Spelling and Grammar:
Overall proofreading was not done and needed to be. (Computer checkers are better than
nothing, but will still miss a lot of mistakes.)
Apostrophes are
not used on possessives. (Exception: possessive "its" gets no apostrophe;
"it's" is a contraction meaning "it is.")
Apostrophes are used on common plurals (only very rare plurals get apostrophes).
Colons and semicolons are misused. (A colon sets something up, often a list; a semicolon
breaks thing apart a bit more strongly than a comma.)
Verbs don't refer to their nouns (singular, plural) properly, or change tense for no reason.
Confusion amongst "there/ their/ they're," or "your/ you're," or "two/ to/ too."
Effect and
affect are confused. (Effect is almost always a thing, affect is a verb.)
Proper usage is "try to do whatever,"
not "try and do it," as most people speak.
Paragraph breaks don't make sense. (They come when you make a major subject change - there is no magic sentence count.)
Footnotes are
overused, or not used when needed, or
formatted improperly.
(See earlier section on footnotes.)
Quotations are overused (you're paraphrasing, mostly, not copying) or are not
attributed.
In quotations, periods and commas are put
outside the quotation marks. (Punctuationat the end of quotations go inside the quotation marks unless putting them there would
change the meaning of the quotes.)
Style results in
confusion or changes for no apparent reason.
Paper isn't long enough. (Text alone has to be at least 4 pages!)
Reference format is wrong, and/or information that's supposed to be there is missing.
Not enough references (should be
at least 4 proper ones!).
You've footnoted a reference
that's not on your reference list.
You've failed to include at least one recent
reference.