Approximately halfway through her Ph. D. program in the biological sciences, my first doctoral student requested that we meet to review progress toward the degree. Knowing that both the research and course work of this student were progressing very nicely, I entered the appointment confident of a glowing report both for graduate student and major professor. However, the discussion took an unanticipated twist as we finished talking about the topics on my agenda.

When and where, this student asked, do we get to the more philosophical part of this Doctorate of Philosophy degree in science? Was it really true that this program that we guidance-committee members had so carefully designed for her was not going to include even one advanced course in philosophy or history of science? If not in formal course work, when would we as major professor and graduate student deal with the logical underpinnings and processes of science at the level of basic principles? The final question had the greatest unintended sting – something to the effect of “Will I graduate feeling worthy of more than a technical degree?”

Stunned and somewhat befuddled, I sent this student on her way with lame explanations: There simply wasn't sufficient time in a modern science education for students to become renaissance scholars as well as well-published researchers capable of competing successfully for federal grant dollars.