Header
AITSE Newsletter
March 2010
Crocker
Greetings!

Am I imagining things because my baloney-detection antenna is up or is everyone talking about the current issues with scientific integrity? New Scientist is suggesting that the veracity of climate change should be honestly investigated. The Economist points out that, in contrast to President Obama's claims, America does not even monitor atmospheric carbon dioxide because our Orbiting Carbon Observatory "was lost on launch".

Humanist Steve Fuller is suggesting that Intelligent Design should receive impartial evaluation, not be arrogantly dismissed as non-science (read more below). In a similar vein, Discovery Institute launched a new push for academic freedom.

Finally I recently spoke with a Newport Beach physician who, to my surprise, suddenly began complaining about his inability to access impartial information about medical treatments because, "it is all controlled by the almighty dollar." Whether or not you agree with his diagnosis, it is sadly true that many Americans are losing their trust in the integrity of science, simply because they perceive that science, medicine and technology are controlled by ideology, politics, and unthinking adherence to the consensus view. In contrast, AITSE strives both to clearly present accurate information and to give the public the freedom to consider all options.

Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters
Out soon!!

Advance orders are now being accepted for Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters. This new book provides alarming details on a government-sponsored attempt to censor and manipulate science education. It will both shock and inspire readers, as well as providing solutions for restoring balanced education and scientific integrity to our nation.

This is the true story of a university biology professor who strove to teach accurately and objectively and was punished by being deprived of her job and her lifelong dream of being a tenured professor. But the abuse of power did not stop here. The government was even able to take away her legal representation by a prestigious law firm. Amazingly, her lawyer also found himself unable to get another job, possibly because of his involvement in these types of cases.

For the first time in print, this riveting story exposes the reader to the inside details of Dr. Crocker's story. Listen in as she discovers the joys and challenges of teaching, finds humility and adjusts her methods as her ideas come into contact with the reality of the classroom. Witness her shock at being summarily removed from the lecture hall without cause, her valiant attempt to fight for her constitutional and academic rights, and her own struggle with disillusionment as she suffers persecution and the abuse of justice perpetrated by the authorities.

Learn how the Darwinian machine tries to crush those who cling fearlessly to the scientific evidence and her message that the right to be intellectually honest and objective must be protected. Be anxious with her as she receives e-mail threats, her story draws media attention, and she makes a career-killing choice to be featured in a blockbuster documentary. Rejoice with her when she creatively adjusts her teaching methods and platform making it possible to impact the lives of many more people than she ever dreamed of reaching.

Readers will find themselves moving from disbelief to shocked outrage as Dr. Crocker's story unfolds. Her compelling story demonstrates that here, in the United States of America, the university has become a place where critical thinking is forbidden, scientific integrity is often abandoned, and our future scientific discoveries and medical breakthroughs hang in the balance. As Dr. Crocker says, "If the United States is to compete in the technologically advanced era, science cannot afford to be narrow-minded or to be controlled by financial, political or religious motives. People must have both accurate information and the freedom to consider all options. Scientific integrity is essential to ensure the continuation of our national way of life." We need to be Free to Think!

A Plea for Scientific Integrity
Posted at ARN.org

I received notice of this well-written blog post just after sending the February update, but when I noticed the topic AND the fact that it referenced Steve Fuller, a Humanist professor from my alma mater, Warwick University, I made sure to save it so that it could be referenced by AITSE members.

The article discussed in the blog is entitled Science Studies Goes Public and is Professor Fuller's response to a paper by Dr. Christine James who wrote about Evolution and Conservative Christianity. Here Dr. Fuller advocates the work of metascientists, those he says "evaluate science from a standpoint that does not presuppose the legitimacy of the dominant paradigm. He or she starts by asking why we pursue science in the first place-the question of ends-and then turns to consider the extent to which the normal pursuit of science satisfies those ends." In other words, a metascientist does not base their science on consensus, but on data and evidence. Sound familiar?

Why is this important? Fuller gives several reasons, basing them on the current debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design (ID). First, to reject ID because it is (erroneously) said to be a religious position would be to negate the work of the many scientists who based their research on the assumption of the existence of an intelligent designer. Second, enforcement of the naturalistic paradigm stifles academic freedom. That is, those who dare to question the consensus are judged on intentions rather than their science; some even lose their jobs. Finally, Fuller points out that the quality of debate is reduced. I am sure many of us have witnessed how ideologies and emotions instead of reasoned argument dominate when this subject is discussed.

For a fuller discussion, go to the ARN blog--or better yet, read Fuller's article. Either way the message is reinforced: Good science must be based on evidence, not mere consensus.

An Appeal for Authentic Science Studies
Simple Idea
Great Results!
checklist

Did you know that about 50% of surgeries end with preventable complications? In this article, the Dr. Atul Gawander, a surgeon who practices in Boston, talks about a project on trying to reduce the surgical death rate he completed for the World Health Organization. He came up with a simple answer--a checklist. Just like pilots and astronauts before take-off, drivers before racing, hopefully students before turning in an assignment, even women before entertaining!

In this remarkable new book, Dr. Atul Gawander suggests that surgeons need to have checklists, just like other professionals. This simple solution was practiced in eight hospitals worldwide and the result was a more than a 33% reduction in surgical complications and a significant decrease in death. Dr. Gawander's department at Harvard has adopted this practice, and he states that they catch a mistake every week.

Unfortunately only 20% of American hospitals have adopted this life-saving practice. For me, I think I'll ask about this as a pre-surgery priority!

'Checklist Manifesto' Author Pairs Simplicity With Lifesaving
Is the Darwinian Paradigm Necessary for Progress in Experimental Biology?
NAS member says, "no!"
Skell

Dr. Phil Skell, AITSE-member, chemist, Professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University and member National Academy of Sciences is well-known for his controversial opinion that the historical sciences contribute nothing to experimental biology. This is in direct opposition to a statement by Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

According to Dr. Skell in his article in Politics and the Life Sciences 27(2):47, "It is our knowledge of how organisms actually operate--not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago--that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers, and other practitioners of science today." He, quite rightly, points out that biohistory and fossil records have very little to contribute to, say, the design of a new antibiotic or advances in the understanding of how tumors are vascularized.

Of course, the usefulness of evolutionary theory in providing a base for empirical research depends on which definition of the term "evolution" one subscribes to. That is, the idea that characteristics of populations change over time in response to environmental pressure (microevolution) is fairly undisputed. As such, few would assert that influenza virus does not mutate and/or rearrange its genome so that last year's immunity does not protect against this year's virus. It follows that studying the "evolutionary" patterns of change in the virus does help in predicting this year's strain (although studying what strains are appearing in the animal population probably helps more).

Perhaps what Dr. Skell is objecting to is the claim that macroevolution, the idea that all life had a common ancestor, is essential to advances in experimental biology. This, after all, is the part of evolutionary theory that is under debate. But, here again it appears that the theory is helpful--I myself have tested asthma medication in animal models. If there was no similarity between humans and animals, this would be a pointless endeavor. The question that then remains is whether the similarity between mice and men is due to common ancestry or a common designer--one to tackle another day!

Regardless, I would agree with Dr. Skell in his statement that, "the overselling of the theory of evolution...may have done a grave disservice...to modern biology." Who would dispute that "the core background for students' understanding and participation in future developments within biological science is not the immersion in historical biology"? Obviously, this time would be better spent learning about what organisms inhabit the earth, how they function and interact, and the methodologies available to study them. There are more than enough biological facts out there, all of them understandable without the addition of what Dr. Skell calls the NAS's reductionist philosophical or theological veneer of naturalistic evolution. I suggest that our science education would be greatly improved if teachers concentrated on them.

Article is not available to the general public, but will appear on our website.
Quotes of the month
From Liberty-Tree-ca

Alan Barth: "Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. That is why silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions."

James Bryant Conant: "Diversity of opinion within the framework of loyalty to our free society is not only basic to a university, but to the entire nation."

What more can I add to the above? We need to be free to think. Scientific integrity IS vital for the future of our nation.

AITSE Business Update
What's the Latest?

So, what is happening specifically? The bad news first. With regard to our nonprofit (501(c)3) status, there is no news yet. However, there is good news about my book, Free to Think. I've been sent the typeset copy, have made the (hopefully) final edits, and it should be out before summer (read more on the left). If you want to pre-order, just e-mail us at [email protected] and let us know how many copies to reserve.

March and April involve some travel for me. My trip to Texas was postponed and was from March 8-17. While there I had the opportunity to interview/film several scientists/physicians, meet with the AITSE board, and recruit new AITSE members. Then, from April 16-23, I will be in the DC area, doing much of the same. If you would like to attend the member or scientist meeting in Virginia, just drop me an email and I'll let you know when and where the meetings will be held.

Finally, I am planning a new book--one containing stories of scientific integrity, or lack of it, and outlining what the results of action taken were. If you have any stories that might be useful for inclusion, just let me know ([email protected])! I always appreciate your input.

Just for Kicks
Darwin to blame

Are you sick? Do you suffer from big feet? Are you fat? Are you nice to strangers? Are you religious--or not? Have you broken the law? Are you mean to strangers? Don't worry. None of it is your fault--you can blame Darwin.

Obesity? Big Feet? Blame Darwin

Evolution and the nonlegal equivalent of aggressive behavior.

Moral Lessons, Down Aisle 9

I wasn't going to include these articles, but the story in the New York Times of how the behavior of Wal-Mart shoppers can be explained by evolutionary psychology pushed me over the edge. But, to be fair, I am not a psychologist. Therefore, I will include a comment on these articles by a psychologist in the next newsletter (if I can get a volunteers for the job).

In closing, as always, thank you for your past gifts and support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot function in its efforts to educate to increase scientific understanding and integrity without contributions. Please consider helping us with a special donation or a commitment to give on a monthly basis. Please make checks payable to AITSE and send them to PO Box 15938, Newport Beach, CA 92659. Alternatively, you can now donate on line through PayPal or credit card at www.AITSE.org.

Sincerely,

signature
Caroline Crocker, MSc, PhD
American Institute for Technology and Science Education
Email Marketing by