SCIENCE EDUCATION

Reflections on DNA Day

How Do We Eliminate Controversy Without Teaching It?

Today is National DNA Day, (now you know). Students across the country are right now discussing inheritance, the achievements of Watson and Crick (probably not Maurice Wilkins or Rosalyn Franklin), and in more progressive parts of the country, Darwin and evolution. ‘Tis a good day to learn some science. But it’s also a good opportunity to consider a radical overhaul of U.S. science education.

But, this year, and indeed, this week have delivered plenty of remarkable news that put the astounding science that surrounds the double helix in a special context that probably can’t be adequately resolved in a science classroom in a day and don’t begin to treat the sickness of scientific ignorance in the U.S.

For example, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, after Senator Coburn (R-OK) lifted his curious block on the bill (he voted in favor of it twice before deciding to block it from even being considered). As much as I would like to pump my fist in victory, we shouldn’t pop the champagne (or Freedom Suds for the jingoistic sect) yet, as the bill is slightly different from the one that passed the House twice this Congress, leaving wiggle-room for more Coburnesque obstructionism. The blocks on GINA were not a science issue, but are at least in part the result of a lack of understanding and appreciation of the fact that genetic predisposition to disease is not a diagnosis. The opposition was mainly about greed and business interests.

Teachers might not be equipped with the knowledge to explain where Watson was wrong, or Ben Stein, or what a genetic predisposition is, or how it could be used to discriminate against someone.

We can drop Ben Stein’s magnum crapus, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in the same category of non-science issues, but for different reasons. Now widely discredited as manufactured controversy in the name of creationist activism, Mr. Stein managed to make a fool of himself by displaying a lack of knowledge and intellectual honesty that will likely spell the end of his unusual career (and might be equally indicative that he should seek some professional help for his case of the crazies). That Mr. Stein is attacking scientists does not make his movie or his aggressively ignorant point of view part of science. But that isn’t going to stop it from coming up in classrooms today.

The unfortunate fall of Jim Watson last October will probably stick in my mind for many years to come. Patently racist comments made in a scientific context effectively ended the career of the world’s most famous living scientist, and we are not better off for it. I am still baffled by Watson’s comments and torn on the fate of one of my science heroes. For sure, students are looking at his Wikipedia entry today and learning that he was forced into retirement for falsely linking race and intelligence.

I worry that teachers might not be equipped with the knowledge to explain where Watson was wrong, or Ben Stein, or what a genetic predisposition is, or how it could be used to discriminate against someone.

The truth is that scientific advances have always brought controversy, most often because of a lack of appreciation and understanding of actual achievements or their implications, coupled with fear of change. Expelled and the opposition to progressive legislation like GINA are symptoms of an ignorance of science and a fear of change, not vice versa. Such misunderstanding is certainly not limited to evolution and human genomics either. The only way to combat that fear is to eliminate it, and the only way to do that is to dedicate a serious effort to revamping science education in the U.S. starting with minimum standards for science education, radically improving science teacher literacy and retention, and making a solid science education compulsory for all students. Let’s not beat around the bush; that is going to cost a lot of money and effort. But there are few measures that the next President and Congress could take that would be more worthwhile for securing our future.

We are in the unfortunate position of having to discuss controversy in classrooms because we have done an inadequate job of creating a scientifically literate public. We lie in this bed because of inaction on creating national science education standards, because of decades of educational decay, and an unwillingness to address the roots of fear and ignorance.

The National Human Genome Research Institute deserves a lot of credit for successfully using DNA Day as a tool to have genomics and basic genetics taught in schools, and there seems little doubt that other groups should expand upon their efforts. But let’s not mistake DNA Day as any kind of solution to the kind of societal and education changes we will need to remain competitive. Each of the Presidential candidates and every candidate for Congress should put their cards on the table for revamping science education. Anyone who doesn’t think that is a prerequisite for their jobs is probably not prepared for them.

Michael Stebbins is the Director of Biology Policy for the Federation of American Scientists, President of the SEA Action Fund and author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted.

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.