1

Click here to load reader

Teaching Science Amid Controversy

  • Upload
    john-w

  • View
    220

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teaching Science Amid Controversy

Chemical Education Today

www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 82 No. 9 September 2005 • Journal of Chemical Education 1271

Editorial

Teaching Science Amid Controversy

Recently it has become clear that there are huge gaps inpublic understanding of the purview and methods of science.Such misunderstandings are perhaps most obvious in contro-versies about evolution and about the teaching of this funda-mental principle of biological science, but they manifestthemselves in many other ways. All scientists, not just biolo-gists, should be concerned about this issue and actively in-volved in addressing it.

Science is applicable to the physical, not the spiritual world.Scientists make observations, carry out experiments, define pro-tocols that insure accurate results and can be reproduced byother scientists, analyze and interpret data, devise theories toexplain observations and data, abandon ideas that are incom-patible with empirical facts, and disseminate their findings toother scientists and the public. Scientists are skeptical and de-mand that ideas be rigorously tested against observations. Al-though individual scientists may not immediately accept newideas that contradict their ingrained understanding, the com-munity of scientists will eventually reach consensus regardingmany aspects of the physical world. Such consensus, and themethods by which it is achieved, should be communicated tostudents and to the general public as scientific findings.

The method of science was a radical, disconcerting ideawhen it was introduced to human society and remains so to-day. Given the successes of science, engineering, and technol-ogy and their pervasiveness in contemporary society, it is easyfor scientists to forget that science may seem threatening andbe viewed with alarm by many people. Nevertheless, the ideathat what one believes about the physical world should be basedon consensus among those who have skeptically examined fac-tual evidence can easily be carried into the spiritual world, therebyundermining faith in anything for which there is no tangibleevidence. This is not to say that scientists cannot be profoundlyreligious or spiritual—obviously many are. It does say that sci-entific ideas can make many people (including students) un-comfortable with their faith, with science, or with both.

Such discomfort has led some to try to introduce religioninto science teaching or to excise from science curricula sub-jects such as evolution, the age of the earth, or the big bangthat appear contradictory to religious views. For example, aschool board in Pennsylvania attempted to require biologyteachers to say that “intelligent design” is just as good as thetheory of evolution (1), students in a Georgia county were tobe taught that evolution is not a consensus view by stickersaffixed to their biology textbooks (2), and there are efforts toprevent teaching of evolution in Brazil and Northern Ireland,to mention only two other countries. The cover of the April28, 2005 issue of Nature contained a sticker based on the onesproposed in Georgia but marked “Approved by the Univer-sity Board of Regents, 2006” to emphasize how antipathy toevolution might affect scientists directly. An editorial and anarticle in Nature suggested that university-level teachers needto discuss these issues in their classes (3).

Even more insidious is the inhibiting effect such contro-versies have on science teachers (4). For example, Eugenie Scott,

executive director of the National Center for Science Educa-tion, which supports teaching of evolution (5), knows of manyteachers who avoid the subject because “it’s just too muchtrouble”, or principals suggest that it should be left out, or par-ents or children object. According to the National Science Teach-ers Association, one-third of teachers feel pressured to includecreationism-related ideas in their classrooms (6). Such pressuresare not limited to pre-college education. I have felt them per-sonally from students and textbook editors, as I am sure manyother college teachers have. To help address this problem theAmerican Chemical Society has issued a strong Statement onTeaching of Evolutionary Theory (7), as have most scienceorganizations (8).

It is easy to ask, “With so many other subjects to teach,why should a chemistry course include anything that might becontroversial and potentially time consuming?” Isn’t the basisof chemistry and science the way we observe and learn aboutnature? What could be more important to teach than that? Infact we do severe disservice to our students and to society atlarge if we avoid teaching the scientific consensus on controver-sial issues such as evolution, global warming, environmental prob-lems, or the origin of the chemical elements. Not only willstudents not learn about the importance and applicability ofscience to their daily lives and to society, many will also be con-fused about the nature of science and the differences betweenscientific and spiritual values. They deserve better than that.

Literature Cited

1. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/issues/doverreversal.shtml2. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/issues/cobbcountystickers.shtml3. Nature 2005 434, 1053, 1062–1065; http://www.nature.com/

nature/journal/v434/n7037/edsumm/e050428-01.html.4. Dean, Cornelia. Evolution Takes A Back Seat In U.S. Classes.

New York Times, February 1, 2005, p D1.5. http://www.ncseweb.org/6. http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_03_28_

pressrelease.htm7. http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pol.html?

id=c373e904891eddda8f6a17245d8301008. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml;

ht tp: / /www.nasonl ine .org / s i t e /PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

all sites accessed Jul 2005

Isn’t the basis of chemistry and science

the way we observe and learn about nature?

What could be more important

to teach than that?