Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Vote for Science: Science, Education, and the Political Process The National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine have just published a book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that should be read by all scientists and teachers of science (1). An eight-page brochure summarizes the book and is an excellent way to stimulate and inform discussions of evolution, creationism, and “intelligent design”. In readily understandable prose, the brochure explains why evolution is important, how science works, and what the word “theory” means in scientific terms. It goes on to document experimental data, collected over the past 150 years by many different kinds of scientists, that support the theory of evolution and have resulted in the theory’s becoming a fundamental aspect of modern science. The brochure points out that creationism does not belong in science classrooms because it is not science, documents why neither creationism nor “intelligent design” qualify as science, and explains that science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. This leads to the conclusion, “Our education system and our society as a whole are best served when we teach science, not religious faith, in science classrooms.” Amen. Recently, there have been repeated attempts, most of them unsuccessful, to introduce “creation science” or “intelligent design” into public school classrooms. Individual teachers have defended their teaching of science, not religion, by invoking statewide standards (2), but there have been attempts to change the standards themselves. Usually this involves requests that “creation science” or “intelligent design” be “treated fairly” and given equal time. Taking a stand for teaching science in science classes should not be grounds for dismissal, but in a recent case in Texas this may have happened. Chris Comer, who for nine years had been head of science curriculum at the Texas Education Agency, claims she was forced to resign because she appended “FYI” and forwarded an email announcing a presentation by an anti-creationist speaker (3). This may well be the first salvo in a campaign to replace science with religion in Texas science classes. An editorial by Donald Kennedy in Science notes that candidates for the presidency of the United States are being asked about their religious faiths, such as whether they believe every word in the Bible (4). Much less on voters’ minds seems to be what the candidates will do to ensure that our country’s scientific and technological capabilities remain at high levels and support U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. Perhaps that is because what will happen tomorrow is much sexier than a longterm plan, but without an on-going strategy to support science, what will happen tomorrow is likely to become steadily worse. Before the holidays, the Congress and the President hastily compromised on a spending package that limited budget increases for research at NIH and NSF to less than the rate of inflation (5). This is not a strategy that bodes well for the future of our country. Some leaders in industry have said in no uncertain terms that lack of support for science and technology will undermine our competitiveness. Nevertheless, when Science was preparing profiles of candidates for the presidency from both parties, not
one candidate agreed to a direct interview by a Science reporter, and some did not even cooperate by making members of their staffs available (6). I encourage you to read the profiles that Science published in its first issue this year (6). Decide which candidates are more likely to support long-term improvement of science education and research, include such an assessment in your political decisions, and consider encouraging others to apply similar considerations in their decisions. We teachers, a major conduit for bringing science to the public, should teach more effectively these fundamental concepts: scientific conclusions are based on observations and experimental results, not on faith; if ideas are to qualify as scientific there must be means by which the ideas can be discarded if the they are in conflict with observations; and science provides an excellent, but not the only, way of understanding and improving the world.
VOTE for
Scien ce
!
Literature Cited 1. National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine. Science, Evolution, and Creationism; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008. Free PDFs of both the 88-page book and an eight-page brochure can be downloaded from http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 (accessed Jan 2008). The book is a revision of an earlier publication, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. 2. Winerip, Michael. On Education: Evolution’s Lonely Battle in a Georgia Classroom. The New York Times, June 28, 2006; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/education/28education. html (accessed Jan 2008). 3. Heinauer, Laura. Education Workers Reined in Before Curriculum Review, Ex-administrator Says. Austin American-Statesman Dec 6, 2007; available at http://www.statesman.com/news/content/ news/stories/local/12/06/1206science.html and links within (accessed Jan 2008). 4. Kennedy, Donald. Science and God in the Election. Science 2008, 319, 12; available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ reprint/319/5859/12.pdf (accessed Jan 2008). 5. Mervis, Jeffrey. Promising Year Ends Badly After Fiscal Showdown Squeezes Science. Science 2008, 319, 18–19; available at http://www. sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/319/5859/18.pdf (accessed Jan 2008). 6. Mervis, Jeffrey. Science and the Next U.S. President. Science 2008, 319, 22–31; available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ full/319/5859/22 (accessed Jan 2008).
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Mar/abs331.html Full text (HTML and PDF) with links to cited URLs Blogged at http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/chemeddl/
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 3 March 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
331
