To the Editor:

The concerns raised by the recent AAAS report, "The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action," (Science Education Seen in Dire Need of `Radial Reform', May 9) should come as no great surprise to those familiar with the current status of science education at the undergraduate level. At the present time, science instruction at most colleges and universities does have a decidedly technological orientation.

Important peripheral considerations such as the historical significance, political climate, or economic ramifications implied by scientific progress are either ignored altogether, or given only perfunctory mention as a means of course introduction.

As the enlightened are acutely aware, science is an inescapable aspect of contemporary Western culture. It distinguishes the 20th Century in the same way that philosophy once characterized ancient Greece; it permeates our daily existence and defines where we are going as a society.

It is imperative that science be taught within a comprehensive context which takes into account the human considerations that are integral to its heritage. Progress does not occur in a vacuum; and scientific instruction must reflect that reality.

Regardless of all the criticism and bad press, it is still true that education continues to hold the last, best hope for our future. Without a systematic perpetuation and ongoing ratiocination of accumulated knowledge, society will eventually succumb to the ravages of ignorance.

Look around. The state of science education at the undergraduate level is often abysmal. At many institutions, the curriculum is not internally consistent; it is disjointed and often exists in a vacuum. Integration with the humanities is urgently needed if we are to be successful in fostering the one commodity that can revitalize the entire enterprise: genuine student interest.

It is imperative that all of our graduates know that DNA is fundamental to our current paradigm for understanding life and its perpetuation throughout the ages. It is equally important that they know its basic structure was first described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 in a classic tale of scientific intrigue which exemplifies how such discoveries are often made.

I sincerely hope that we will take the AAAS report seriously and act accordingly. In a very real sense, our priorities seem to be grossly out of sync with our aspirations. Perhaps more than at any time previously, civilization's collective destiny is intrinsically linked to what we do, or fail to do, in the immediate future.