Don't forget Brother George Pahl's place in SMU science history
Letter to the Editor, extended version
Saint Mary's Magazine, Spring 2009

When the class of 1958 held its 50th reunion last June, I had the chance to revisit rooms in the science building where we attended the first classes and conducted our laboratory exercises, beginning in 1955. I have read the descriptions of the planned new science facility in the special brochure and in Saint Mary’s Magazine.

It may have been serendipitous, but a new book edited by Roman Taraban and Richard L. Blanton, “Creating Effective Undergraduate Research Program in Science,” was reviewed in Science magazine on Jan. 2, 2009. It points out the need for science programs that answer the question, “How do undergraduate students become engaged in and excited about science?” Certainly having modern facilities is important for educating students in both contemporary and future needs in the sciences. I hope that SMU will be able to modernize quickly to fulfill its teaching visions.

But facilities aren’t the only ingredient in a successful program. The reviewers point out, “For may scientists, the formative event was joining a laboratory for an inquiry-based project that had the elements of ownership and discovery.” Beginning in the early 1950s, those of us who majored in biology discovered the excitement and limitless frontiers in science because of the challenges presented in a unique, enthusiastic teaching and mentoring style by Brother George Pahl. He seems to have been inadvertently overlooked in the history of success of the SMU science programs presented in the brochures and in the halls of SMU.

Brother George introduced many sophisticated concepts and programs. First and foremost was the requirement that we design, conduct and document baccalaureate research based on questions that se posed. What better way to learn about science than to conduct research using scientific thought and methodology? My B.S. thesis stands on my bookshelf next to an M.S, thesis and a doctoral dissertation. It helped to get me started years before my peers in other institutions did anything on their own.

He was an excellent mentor because he had excellent educational and scientific credentials. His Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame was in the newly created field of radiation cytology. The importance of his research was validated when we was given a rare lifetime professional grant by the National Cancer Institute. Those of us who worked as his research assistants learned first hand how to conduct scientific studies from someone who taught by example, not just out of books.

His Socratic teaching method wasn’t immediately appreciated by those of us who were used to having our teachers and professors tell us what we needed to know. He kept asking us questions so that we began to learn to think on our own, and to defend our positions, or to change them based on available evidence. We also began to learn that just because something was published in a book, didn’t make it truth forever.

Typically he would put a chart or graph up on the board, or direct us to one in our text, and then ask us what we could interpolate and extrapolate from the data presented. He kept pressing us for more insights, which forced us to think outside of our comfort zone Great training for a science career.

When Watson and Crick published their article in Nature describing the structure of DNA, Brother George immediately incorporated it into his teaching curriculum. I’m not sure that at the time even he grasped the full significance of this monumental breakthrough, but he enthusiastically presented it to us.

At the beginning of our physiology class in senior year Brother George brought us into the laboratory where there was a large carton. It contained a Coulter particle-size counter he had purchased with funds from his National Cancer Institute grant. This was an expensive, edge-of-the-wedge, sophisticated instrument. He told our class to unpack it, read the instruction books, and then pose scientific questions that might be answered using the capabilities of the counter. I didn’t use a Coulter Counter again until four years later when I conducted research at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He was ahead of his time, and, as a result, so were we.

Besides exposing us to important scientific literature and equipment, he also brought in eminent seminar speakers who were active in exciting research fields. Franz Halberg, the founder of modern chronobiology who coined the term “Circadian rhythms,” was a frequent seminar speaker.

Because of his connection with Dr. Halberg, Brother George was able to bring two of us to the medical research dinners at the home of the Mayo brothers in Rochester. Watching the give and take exchanges during the seminars opened my eyes to the reality that scientific knowledge is fluid, not static, and is subject to constantly changing interpretations based on new information, or a reexamination of past data. This is where I first began to understand the elegance of the scientific method.

Shortly after the science building was opened in 1955, it was Brother George who began the process of establishing a chapter of Beta Beta Beta, the National Biological Honor Society, at SMU. He worked very hard, and after an initial qualified denial, he was later successful.

He also worked to establish the Homer limnological station so that opportunities in freshwater biology and ecology could be provided to SMU students and faculty.

I think his impact could be best demonstrated by the numbers of biology students who received degrees, and then went on to receive Ph.D.s, M.D.s, DDSes, DVMs, et al. His significance could also be gauged by the number of scientific papers published by his students over the decades, and the numbers of student recognized as eminent practitioners in their fields. His influence ripples out over several generations.

My view of the importance of Brother George to the success of SMU’s science program in no way diminishes the significance of Brother Charles who started the Biology Department in 1933, taught some of our courses in the 1950s and into the 1980s. Rather, my intent is to offer the view that Brother George was significant in launching modern aspects of biology and research that I think many of us would have to say were seminal in our later career paths.

Although there is a bronze bust of Brother Charles, and a Brother Charles Hall, and the Class of 1958 instituted the Brother Charles Scholarship, please don’t overlook the importance of Brother George Pahl. After all, didn’t he become an important president of SMU as well?

Tom O’Farrell ’58