science talent: the elusive gift

11
654 Science Talent: The Elusive Gift Craig Blurton It has long been recognized that cer- tain individuals excel in the study of science. Such science talent is ac- knowledged by the layperson who recognizes the names of the scientific "greats" of the world al- most as readily as those of popular sports heros or entertainment fig- ures. However, recognizing that some individuals have special ability in the study and practice of science and identifying them while they are still in elementary, junior, or senior high school are quite different prob- lems. The search for the scientifically talented has been pursued with vary- ing degrees of intensity for at least the past 30 to 40 years in America; yet, as Paul Brandwein, one of our most successful science educators, noted in 1952, "one is struck by the paucity of published observations which would serve to define the trait [of science talent], if indeed, there 1. The astute reader will have noticed that most of the literature mentioned in this article that pertains to science talent is either from the 1950s or from the 1970s. During the 1960s, research interest was apparently focused elsewhere as very few studies were published during this period that focused on the question of science talent. School Science and Mathematics Volume 83 (8) December 1983

Upload: craig-blurton

Post on 29-Sep-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

654

Science Talent:The Elusive Gift

Craig Blurton

It has long been recognized that cer-tain individuals excel in the study ofscience. Such science talent is ac-knowledged by the layperson whorecognizes the names of thescientific "greats" of the world al-most as readily as those of popularsports heros or entertainment fig-ures. However, recognizing thatsome individuals have special abilityin the study and practice of scienceand identifying them while they arestill in elementary, junior, or seniorhigh school are quite different prob-lems.The search for the scientifically

talented has been pursued with vary-ing degrees of intensity for at leastthe past 30 to 40 years in America;yet, as Paul Brandwein, one of ourmost successful science educators,noted in 1952, "one is struck by thepaucity of published observationswhich would serve to define the trait[of science talent], if indeed, there

1. The astute reader will have noticed that most of the literature mentioned in this article that pertains to science talentis either from the 1950s or from the 1970s. During the 1960s, research interest was apparently focused elsewhere as veryfew studies were published during this period that focused on the question of science talent.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 2: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

Science Talent 655

be one" (p. 25). Although much research has been carried out since hisobservation, evidence that such a trait exists and methods for identifyingand measuring science talent are still lacking.

Dr. Sanford J. Cohn, Director of the Project for the Study of Aca-demic Precocity (PSAP) at Arizona State University and past AssistantDirector of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) atJohns Hopkins University, has outlined a number of basic issues to beconsidered within each "specific talent dimension . . . these basic issuesare onset, content, style, pacing, and context" (1981, p. 38). Each ofthese issues, onset, or when does science talent first manifest itself andhow may it be validly and reliably identified; content, or what is an ap-propriate curriculum for scientifically talented youth; style, or whatmethod(s) of presentation would be most appropriate with students whohave demonstrated high scientific ability; pacing, or how rapidly shouldscientifically talented youths be asked to work through the science cur-riculum; and context, or what effect do other variables such as home lifeand community have on the development and education of the scientifi-cally talented, is important.The questions of onset and the identification of scientific talent, of

necessity, precede the other issues and are assumed by them. This paperwill focus on some of the difficulties associated with the identification ofscientific talent, briefly review some of the research in the area of scien-tific ability (Note 1), and describe one strategy that has been used withsuccess to identify the scientifically talented.

Problems

Perhaps the most basic problem in the identification of the scientificallytalented is whether, in fact, science talent exists as a separate trait distin-guishable from high general ability. Science talent may simply be highgeneral ability applied to a scientific topic or a fortuitous combination ofother specific abilities that enable an individual to excel at science, givenan interest in doing so. This author’s review of the literature yielded nostudies which support the single trait hypothesis although the existence ofsuch a trait would greatly simplify the task of identification. It is an ap-pealing hypothesis without empirical support.

If no single trait exists that can be labeled "science talent," what ofhigh general ability? Can it, as measured by intelligence tests, accountfor the variance we observe in the ability to study and practice the sci-ences? Common sense tells us that it cannot. Almost ah educators canprovide anecdotal evidence of youths who possess high general ability as

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 3: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

656 Science Talent

demonstrated by intelligence test scores and performance in other areasof the curriculum but who do poorly in science, including students whohave demonstrated high ability in mathematics. Terman (1954) studied800 male subjects of high general ability beginning in their childhood,some of whom subsequently had scientific careers and some of whom didnot. Ratings on intellectual, aesthetic, and physical traits failed to yieldsignificant differences between the scientists and nonscientists of thishighly able group (p. 13), indicating other factors were responsible forinterest and success in the sciences.

If high general ability alone cannot account for science talent, what ofa fortuitous combination of specific abilities that come together in someset ratio or proportion to create high scientific ability in an individual?To understand the difficulty associated with this hypothesis consider

two people practicing science successfully, both having outstanding repu-tations in scientific circles, both having published many scientific papers,and both having garnered many scientific awards for their work. One isstudying subatomic particles in a sophisticated laboratory at a major re-search university and the other is searching for human origins in thebleak deserts of eastern Africa. What set recipe, mixing so much of thiswith so much of that, could account for the variance present in theirjobs, both of which we label "science"?

". . . Science5 is a diverse enterprise which . . . can accomo-date individuals with many ^different constellations of abili-ties\^

That which we have by convention labeled "science" is a diverse enter-prise which, because of its diversity, can accomodate individuals withmany "different constellations of abilities" (Cohn, 1979, p. 19). Anymethod of identification that presumes one set of specific skills must bepresent in certain proportions will most certainly fail to identify all ofthose individuals who could potentially contribute original work in sci-ence. A marine, biologist studying the life cycle of the Lollgo pealii(squid) may need a considerably different constellation of abilities thanan astronomer studying quasars with a state-of-the-art radio telescope.This is supported in the literature by Roe (1952) who found that her sam-ple of emminent physical scientists were much more able mathematicallythan her biologists and WolfIe (1952) who found college graduates in thephysical sciences tended to have Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scoresabove the college average while those in biology about equalled the col-lege average. In a late study, Hansen and Neujahr (1976) found students

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 4: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

Science Talent 657

who excelled in mathematics in high school were more likely to select aphysical science major than those who did not from among a group oftalented science students. Those who did not excel in mathematics weremore likely to select a biological sciences major.

But might there not be some underlying similarity in the practice of allof the sciences, perhaps that known as "scientific" reasoning? Perhaps,but certainly our powers of reasoning predate the invention and practiceof organized science. To be valid as a means of identifying science talent,such hypothesized "scientific" reasoning would need to be qualitativelydifferent from reasoning used in the study of other disciplines such aslaw or agriculture. Although it is considered plausible that the ability toutilize formal reasoning strategies as defined by Piaget (1972):

such as the isolation and control of variables, correlational, proportional,and probabilistic reasoning in the solution of problems . . . will. . . enhanceproblem solving and achievement in the natural sciences . . . (Lawson, 1982,p. 77)

and that "formal reasoning seems surely necessary for understanding thenature of science" (Lawson & Snitgen, 1982, p. 233), it does not followthat formal reasoning is unique to the practice of science or that by iden-tifying an able formal reasoner one has identified an individual with sci-ence talent. The ability to reason formally "will improve performance inother academic pursuits as well" (Lawson, 1982, p. 77).Another problem for those who would search for individuals with

scientific talent is that there appears to be an extreme type, such as thatdemonstrated by Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and others which is cer-tainly quantitatively and perhaps qualitatively different from that pos-sessed by the average scientist. In The Structure of Scientific Revolu-tions, Thomas Kuhn (1962) describes the vast majority of scientists aspuzzle-solvers engaged in mopping-up operations delineated by the workof those few individuals capable of creating new paradigms that "pro-vide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientificresearch" (p. 10). Physicist Norman Campbell (1921) in What is Sci-ence?, considered a classic in the philosophy of science, acknowledgesthe existence of:

great men [of science] who surpass their fellows in some scarcely comprehen-sible manner . . . [and who] achieve more by their influence than by their di-rect action. They change the world by enabling others to complete what theyhave themselves begun (p. 73).Any scheme designed to search for science talent need have broad

enough vision to encompass the range of scientific talent which exists

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 5: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

658 Science Talent

from the more mundane, although essential, of the laboratory technicianto the "scarcely comprehensible" talent of the theoretical genius.

Onset

As noted early, "Onset" asks the questions of when science talentemerges in individuals and how it can validly and reliably be identified.The early identification of talent is generally accepted as an educationalgoal. It may be an especially important goal for those who would identifyscience talent because "research has indicated that the peak years of pro-ductivity come relatively early in the lives of our scientists" (Bloom,1955, p. 287). Lehman (1953), in Age and Achievement, reports that thevast majority of important scientific work is accomplished by people un-der the age of 40 and that some of the most important discoveries comefrom early achievers who have not yet reached their majority, e.g., SirHumphry Davy discovering the anesthetic properties of nitrous oxide atthe age of 20; Galileo giving us the laws of the pendulum at 17 (pp. 200-217). By identifying the scientifically talented early and facilitating theireducation we can prevent their being "stuck" in an educational systemthat would keep them in a classroom far into their potentially most crea-tive years instead of allowing them to do research.

Research indicates the peak years of productivity come rela-tively early in the lives of our scientists.

This is not to imply that scientific talent is always manifest at an earlyage. Contrary to the "strong early interest in science and early evidenceof high intellectual ability" (Segal, Busse, & Mansfield, 1980, p. 63)usually shown by top scientists, Busse and Mansfield (1981), in a study ofcreative scientists ("creative" as measured by the number of citations re-ceived), found notable exceptions. These late bloomers either had not de-cided on a career in science until the end of their college years or hadnever, prior to their doctorates, won a prize or award at any academiclevel. It would seem evident that one can find the scientifically talentedquite late in their academic careers and, as a result, that efforts to iden-tify the scientifically talented should continue throughout the education-al system. The question becomes: how early can we start to look for sci-ence talent?

Keating’s (1976) research has established that intellectual precocity im-plies developmental precocity. Children with high ability as measured bytests progress through the same developmental stages described by Piaget

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 6: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

Science Talent 659

in the same sequence but at an earlier age than their less able peers. Thismeans that children of high ability often reach formal operations,thought to be prerequisite for success in science and mathematics, morequickly than their age-mates. Work done at the Project for the Study ofAcademic Precocity (PSAP) at Arizona State University supports this.PSAP, as part of its overall mission, operates an evaluation clinic whereparents of children thought to be highly able can have their offspringtested in a variety of areas of intellectual talent. Since its establishment in1979, clinic personnel have identified hundreds of children who havedemonstrated precocious mental development by their performance ontests of verbal and mathematical reasoning. For example, consider thecase of a male student who when tested was chronologically nine years,ten months old and in the fourth grade. Although he had never taken analgebra course, he scored at the 73rd percentile on an algebra test whencompared to eighth graders who had already completed an algebra Icourse. This same child subsequently took the SAT and scored 630 on theSAT-Math, a score well in excess of the 500 usually achieved by male col-lege-bound high school seniors. Although unusual, this child is by nomeans unique. Many intellectually able children may have the capacity toreason formally prior to entrance into junior or senior high school.

In addition to having the ability to reason formally, and therefore"scientifically," many students focus on science as a primary academicand career interest while still very young. Zim (1949) found participantsin a Junior Scientists Assembly ("young scientists-in-training residing orattending college in the region of the meeting" [p. 344]) reported becom-ing interested in science as early as five years of age with the average agereported being ten and one half. All but one of the participants reportedbecoming interested in science prior to age 18 and "65 percent of the menand 45 percent of the women were active in a field of science identical orsimilar to their first interest" (p. 348). He concluded:

Their early and persistent interest in science indicates that our concern withdeveloping professional scientists must extend down through the junior highschool into the upper elementary grades (p. 349).

Terman (1954), in the study described before, also found an early in-terest in science as a potential career field was much more commonamong his subjects who went on to scientific careers than among thosewho did not. He noted:

early ability or interest in science is far more common among children wholater become physical scientists, engineers, or biologists than among those

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 7: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

660 Science Talent

who enter nonscientific fields. This has long been recognized but has not yetreceived the attention it deserves in educational and vocational guidance(P. 36).

Hansen and Neujahr (1976), in a study of talented high school sciencestudents, report "an early interest in science seems to be related to scien-tific publications" (p. 460) and "those who displayed an early interest inscience by developing a home lab (sic) of their own or by winning scien-tific awards are more likely to persist in and be successful at science55(p. 462).

Other researchers who have found success in the study or practice ofscience is associated with an early interest in science include Goodrich,Knapp, & Boehm (1951), Knapp & Goodrich (1952), MacCurdy (1956),and Walberg (1969). However, many scientists began to work in sciencerelatively late in their careers as noted earlier. Roe (1952) found this to betrue of many of the 64 individuals in her study of emminent scientists.Thus we see that students below the age of junior or senior high school

may have the ability to successfully study advanced scientific concepts,i.e., the ability to reason formally, and the interest to want to do so. Po-tentially, we could identify scientific talent prior to junior high schoolbut it may also emerge much later in an individual’s academic career.

Identification Scheme

If, as yet, nothing has been identified that is unique to the study andpractice of science that can be used to validly and reliably identify stu-dents with scientific talent, what can be done? As noted before, any sci-ence talent identification scheme must be broad enough to take into ac-count that different tasks in the pursuit of scientific knowledge may re-quire different constellations of abilities and that scientific talent mayexist in qualitatively different degrees in different individuals.

". . . to be successful in science, one must be both verballyand mathematically able/9

Despite the lack of a method of identifying science talent by the recog-nition of a single trait or combination of traits unique to the practice ofscience, research in the area is consistent in finding that to be successfulin science, one must be both verbally and mathematically able. Verballyso that one can communicate effectively within the scientific communityand mathematically because, as Stanley (1976) put it, "by the time mostof today’s students are in mid-career a nonquantitative home within sci-ence will be difficult to find" (p. 29).

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 8: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

Science Talent 661

To better understand the need for verbal excellence in a scientific ca-reer, consider the importance of publication in scientific journals to ascientist’s promotions, awards, and funding. The scientist unable to co-herently and accurately report complex, esoteric data may be doomed tofunction in an information "vacuum," receiving little recognition, feed-back, or the validation of work through replication by others. Segal,Busse, and Mansfield (1980) found, in their sample of highly cited bio-logical scientists, that "prizes for writing were won by 27 percent ... ingrades 7-9 and by 27 percent in grades 10-12" (p. 498). Brandwein(1955), Cohn (1979), Fehr (1953), Roe (1952), and Walberg, et al.,(1981), all report high verbal ability as an important component of suc-cess in science.As reported by Hansen and Neujahr (1976), "a talent for mathematics

seems to be associated with success in the scientific enterprise" (p. 461).Such an association is noted as early as 1948 in the literature by Subarskywho, in an article titled "What is Science Talent?" wrote "a third in-gredient of science talent is the ability and predilection to think in quanti-tative terms" (p. 380). This recognition of the need for high mathe-matical ability in the study and practice of science is widespread in the lit-erature although it is also recognized that the physical sciences tradition-ally have required a higher level of mathematical ability than the biologi-cal sciences (Hansen & Neujahr [1976], Roe [1952], Wolfle [1952]).Adams and Garret (1954), Bloom (1955), Brandwein (1955), Harmon(1955), and Stanley (1976) report high ability in mathematics as an im-portant component of success in science.

Thus, an identification scheme which recognizes that potential scien-tists often have an early and persistent interest in science and need highmathematical and verbal skills to succeed in science can be used to iden-tify students with science talent. The first step in such a scheme would beto identify a talent pool of youngsters who are very able in mathematicaland verbal areas. Then, by allowing them the opportunity to self-selecteducational experiences in science, those with scientific talent will iden-tify themselves by taking advantage of the opportunities. Brandwein(1955) found:

when a program with clear intentions is carefully explained to the studentbody, when its curricular outlines are clearly understood, students with sus-tained interests and adequate qualifications come forth and identify them-selves^)^. 29).

Tests Brandwein later used to identify students with scientific potential

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 9: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

662 Science Talent

"selected much the same youngsters" (p. 29) as had identified them-selves, given the opportunity.

Conclusion

The identification of the scientifically talented is difficult because suchtalent, rather than being expressed as a distinct and recognizable traitrather like musical or mathematical talent, can be expressed as a varietyof abilities in different combinations for different sciences. This problemis exacerbated by the probable existence of "levels" of scientific talentwhich may be qualitatively as well as quantitatively different.Any science talent identification scheme that would allow for such di-

versity must also recognize that high verbal and mathematical ability areprerequisite for success in the sciences.

The scheme outlined above, finding students with high verbal andmathematical ability and then allowing them to self-select educational fa-cilitation in the sciences, will accomodate the probable diversity of scien-tific talents and the needs of the different sciences. The threshold level ofverbal and mathematical ability necessary for access to special education-al facilitation in the sciences can either be predetermined based on thesize of the talent pool of students and the available resources or the pro-gram’s founders could choose to let a form of natural selection operatein which any student may enroll in the science facilitation program but,because of its rigorous nature, only the highly able would be likely tocomplete the work successfully.The strategy described, identification of a pool of highly able individu-

als and the opportunity to self-select rigorous academic programming inmathematics, science, and verbal areas of study, has been used success-fully to facilitate the education of excellent junior high school-aged stu-dents at various university-based programs such as PSAP for the pastdecade, beginning with Dr. Julian Stanley’s seminal work at Johns Hop-kins University with SMPY. Such programs, utilizing a two-step identifi-cation procedure described by Keating (1975) to identify exceptionallyable youngsters, now encompass the fifty U.S. states and the southernprovinces of Canada with their "Talent Searches" (Note 2). The sameprinciples could be used to find and facilitate talented science students inthe elementary school.As we learn more about individuals who are talented in one or another

2. Cohn, S. J. Talent Searches: A National and International Effort. Chronicle of Academic and Artistic Precocity,1983,2 (1), 1. Available from the Project for the Study of Academic Precocity (PSAP), Department of Special Education,Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 10: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

Science Talent 663

scientific field we may be able to "fine tune" our selection and counsel-ing procedures to accomodate specific abilities that may be necessary forsuccess in a specific scientific career. We already suspect physicists needhave more than average ability in space relations (Roe, 1954; Cohn,1979). At present, our "best bet" strategy would seem to be to allow chil-dren of high verbal and mathematical ability the opportunity to partakeof special science facilitation programs in the belief that those with scien-tific talent will avail themselves of such opportunities and distinguishthemselves through their work. As science educators, it becomes our taskto identify the talent pool and provide high quality, advanced level,rigorous educational programming in the sciences for those who chooseto participate.

References

1. Adams, S., and H. L. Garrett. Scholastic Background as Related to Success in CollegePhysics. Journal of Educational Research, 1954, 47, 545-549.

2. Bloom, S. W. The Early Identification of Potential Scientists. School Science andMathematics, 1955, 55, 287-295.

3. Brandwein, P. F. Selection and Training of Future Scientists: III Hypotheses on theNature of Science Talent. Science Education, 1952, 36, 25-26.

4. Brandwein, P. F. The Gifted Student as Future Scientist. New York: Harcourt, Braceand Company, 1955.

5. Busse, T. V., and R. S. Mansfield. The Blooming of Creative Scientists: Early, Late,and Otherwise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1981. 25 (2). 63-66.

6. Campbell,N. What Is Science? New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1953. (Originallypublished, 1921).

7. Cohn, S. J. Searching for Scientifically Talented Youth? Science and Children, Octo-ber 1979, pp. 18-19.

8. Cohn, S. J. What Is Giftedness?: A Multidimensional Approach to Finding and Solv-ing Problems Concerning Educating Gifted Youngsters. In A. H. Kramer (Ed.), Gift-ed Children: Challenging Their Potential, New Perspectives and Alternatives. NewYork: Trillium Press, 1981.

9. Fehr, H. F. General Ways to Identify Students with Science and Mathematics Poten-tial. Mathematics Teacher, 1953, 46, 230-234.

10. Goodrich, H. B., R. H. Knapp, and A. W. Boehm. The Origins of U.S. Scientists.Scientific American, 1951, 185 (1), 15-17.

11. Hansen, R. A., and J. Neujahr. Career Development of High School Students Talent-ed in Science. Science Education, 1976, 60, 453-462.

12. Harmon, L. R. Ability Patterns in Seven Science Fields. Office of Scientific Personnel,National Academy of Science�National Research Council Technical Report No. 10,1955.

13. Keating, D. P. Testing Those in the Top Percentiles. Exceptional Children, 1975, 41,435-436.

14. Keating, D. P. A Piagetian Approach to Intellectual Precocity. In D. P. Keating (Ed.),Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press, 1976.

15. Knapp, R. H., & H. B. Goodrich. Origins of American Scientists. Chicago: The Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1952.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983

Page 11: Science Talent: The Elusive Gift

664 Science Talent

16. Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1970.

17. Lawson, A. E. Formal Reasoning, Achievement, and Intelligence: An Issue of Impor-tance. Science Education, 1982, 66, 77’-S3.

18. Lawson, A. E., and D. A. Snitgen. Teaching Formal Reasoning in a College BiologyCourse for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1982, 19,233-248.

19. Lehman, H. C. Age and Achievement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.20. MacCurdy, R. D. Characteristics of Superior Science Students and Their Own Sub-

groups. Science Education, 1956, 40, 3-24.21. Piaget, J. Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood. Human Develop-

ment, 1972,15, 1-12.22. Roe, A. R. A Psychologist Examines 64 Eminent Scientists. Scientific American, 1952,

187 (5), 21-25.23. Segal,’S. M., T. V. Busse, and R. S. Mansfield. The Relationship of Scientific Creativ-

ity in the Biological Sciences to Predoctoral Accomplishments and Experiences.American Educational Research Journal, 1980, 17, 491-502.

24. Stanley, J. C. The Student Gifted in Mathematics and Science. National Associationof Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 1976, 60(39S), 28-37.

25. Subarsky, Z. What Is Science Talent? Scientific Monthly, 1948, 66, 377-382.26. Terman, L. M. Scientists and Nonscientists in a Group of 800 Gifted Men. Psychologi-

cal Monographs, 1954, 68 (7, Whole no. 378), 1-44.27. Walberg, H. J. A Protrait of the Artist and Scientist as Young Men. Exceptional Chil-

dren, 1969,^,5-11.28. Walberg, H. J., S. L. Tsai, T. Weinstein, C. L. Gabriel, S. P. Rasher, T. Rosecrans,

E. Rovai, J. Ide, M. Trujillo, and P. Vukosavich. Childhood Traits and Environmen-tal Conditions of Highly Eminent Adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1981,25, 103-107.

29. Wolfle, D. Intellectual Ability of Students Entering Different Fields of Science. Sci-ence, 1952, 775 (2991), 489.

Craig BlurtonArizona State UniversityCollege of EducationTempo, Arizona 85287

NITROGEN FIXATION STUDIED

Nitrogen fixation converts nitrogen gas to a form usable by higher organismswhich cannot use it without conversion. Nitrogen is an essential component ofboth amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which form all living things,and nucleic acids, the molecules that carry and transfer genetic information. Ni-trogen fixing bacteria require high levels of oxygen for respiration, since nitro-gen fixation consumes large amounts of energy. By isolating and studying bacte-rial genes Michigan State University scientists hope to learn what signals fromplants causes the nitrogen fixation bacteria to begin the fixation process.

School Science and MathematicsVolume 83 (8) December 1983