The Louisiana Coalition for Science is proud to present our first-ever guest column, which was written by Dr. Ian Chandler Binns.

Dr. Binns joined LCFS’s effort to protect science education while he was on the faculty at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Although he has relocated to the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, he remains an integral part of our effort.

In his article below (also downloadable in pdf), Dr. Binns has profiled the contribution to society of the 75 Nobel Laureates who support repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act. (Our thanks also goes to Zack Kopplin, whose efforts produced this impressive source of support.)

Before reading Dr. Binns’s article, let’s first stop and think, readers, about the contributions that creationism has made to the world of science. Actually, you don’t have to stop and think . . .

— here is a list. Now, let’s look at what these 75 Nobelists have done not only to advance modern science but to make our lives immeasurably better. When you call and e-mail the Senate Education Committee to request that they support Senator Karen Carter Peterson’s SB 374, which would repeal the LSEA in its entirety, please mention that the 75 Nobelists have done MUCH more for Louisiana than the creationists at the Discovery Institute and the Louisiana Family Forum. And thanks to Dr. Binns for all of his work on this piece.

========================================================================================================

Profiles of the 75 Nobel Laureates Who Support Repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act

Ian C. Binns, Ph.D., Science Education, University of Virginia

Assistant Professor, College of Education, University of North Carolina-Charlotte

 Formerly of Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA

 Member, Louisiana Coalition for Science

For the second year in a row, Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) has filed a bill to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA). This year’s bill is SB 374. Zack Kopplin, a 2011 graduate of Baton Rouge Magnet High School and now a freshman at Rice University, is leading the effort again. Last year, in addition to several other prominent scientists, scientific organizations, and educational organizations, Zack had the support of 43 Nobel Laureates, 42 of whom signed a letter to the Louisiana legislature in their attempt to help repeal the LSEA. Unfortunately, that effort failed in the Senate Education Committee, a development which — of course — was celebrated by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) and the Discovery Institute (DI), who worked together to write and promote the LSEA. DI responded to the repeal bill’s failure in two articles on its Evolution News and Views blog (see here and here). In both articles, DI promoted a letter [pdf] signed by “15 Ph.D. scientists” challenging “the ideological motives of many of the scientists who have opposed the LSEA.” This letter will be addressed in a separate Louisiana Coalition for Science post. However, this post highlights the achievements of the Nobel Prize-winning scientists who support repeal of the creationist LSEA.

This year, Zack added 32 additional Nobel Laureates to the list, bringing the total to 75 (32 in Physics, 28 in Chemistry, and 15 in Physiology or Medicine). Getting 43 last year was pretty impressive, but 75 Nobel Laureates! As with last year, this number doesn’t include the other endorsements: seven additional prominent scientists, the City Council of New Orleans (unanimously), the Clergy Letter Project, three organizations of educators, and six national science organizations. That’s quite an impressive group of people who support the protection of science education in Louisiana.

However, I have learned through my involvement in the repeal effort and participation in defending the state textbook selection process in 2010 (see here) that merely having a list of individuals and organizations, even one as impressive as this, isn’t enough. I recently read a comment posted to an article about the current repeal effort in which the commenter asked whether anyone had ever heard of any of the 75 Nobel Laureates. The comment made me think that most Louisiana legislators probably feel the same way. This year, I thought it would be interesting to not only talk about the number of Nobel Laureates, but to look at some of the advancements we have made as a society because of their contributions to science. I hope that after learning about how these scientists have helped advance human wellbeing, it will be more difficult for Louisiana legislators to turn their backs on these Nobel Laureates’ support for repeal of the LSEA.

After several weeks of researching each of the 75 Laureates, I found some very interesting information on how their work has improved society. Ideally, I would like to share all of this information. Since this is impractical, my goal is not to focus on the scientific explanations of their work but simply to address how it has benefitted society. Readers who want to learn more about the science behind their work can go to the Nobel Prize website, which provides a nice summary of each winner’s work in a press release and, in some cases, a section called “Popular Information” (see here and here, for example).

I have organized their work into three main areas: scientific advancements, technological advancements, and medical advancements. Finally, I also included statements of acclaim made by other members of the scientific community. I would like to point out that all of these scientists worked with a team of people. In fact, of the 75 Nobel Laureates who support the repeal effort, all except eight shared the award with at least one other scientist. However, I am going to focus only on the Laureates who support repeal of the LSEA.

Scientific Advancements

The work of all 75 Nobel Laureates has led to scientific advancements. My purpose in this section is to focus on only those scientists whose work primarily led to further advances in basic science instead of applied disciplines such as technology or medicine. Some of the Nobel Laureates have been credited for strengthening a specific scientific discipline. For example, Christian de Duve (1974; Physiology or Medicine), who discovered lysosomes and peroxisomes (two important organelles in cells), has “been largely responsible for the creation of modern Cell Biology” (Nobel Prize [NP] press release). Riccardo Giacconi (2002; Physics), the first person to detect a source of x-rays outside our solar system, was credited for laying the “foundations of X-ray astronomy” (NP press release). Gerhard Ertl (2007; Chemistry), who studies surface chemistry, has “laid the foundation of modern surface chemistry” (NP “Information for the Public”) [pdf].

Ben Mottelson (1975; Physics), who shared his award with Aage Bohr, the son of Niels Bohr, was one of the key scientists whose work led to a “deepened understanding of the structure of the atomic nucleus” (NP press release). Leon Lederman (1988; Physics), who is arguably one of the top particle physicists in the world and whom Chicago Museum of Science and Technology once called a “modern day Leonardo da Vinci,” was part of the team that developed the neutrino beam method and discovered muon neutrinos. Due to their work, “neutrinos have been used to analyze everything from the structure of the atomic nucleus to the energy level of an exploding star, or supernova” (Academy of Achievement).

Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, the most recent winners in physics, received their award for discovering that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating. This discovery has had an enormous impact on our understanding of the universe. Finally, if all of this isn’t sufficiently impressive, then perhaps understanding the impact of the work of Paul Crutzen (1995; Chemistry) and Mario Molina (1995; Chemistry) would be interesting. These two scientists won their awards for their work on ozone layer depletion and their identification of the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. The Nobel Prize press release indicated that “[b]y explaining the chemical mechanisms that affect the thickness of the ozone layer, the three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental program that could have catastrophic consequences.”

Technological Advancements

It was really interesting to learn how the work of some of the 75 Nobel Laureates has led to many technological advancements that we take for granted. For example, Herbert Kroemer’s (2000; Physics) research has directly impacted literally everyone’s daily life. His research on transistors has “furthered the development of the cell phone and other wireless communications technologies” (IEEE Global History Network). All Louisiana legislators probably have some sort of a wireless communication device, especially considering that as of June 2011, there were 322.8 million wireless subscriber connections in the United States alone (CTIA Advocacy). What about GPS technology? William Phillips and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji (1997; Physics) and John Hall (2005; Physics) have all contributed to the development of better GPS technology. I can think of multiple occasions when my GPS has helped me when I was either lost or trying to find a way around heavy traffic.

The work of at least two Laureates has had a direct impact on the computer industry. Philip Warren Anderson’s (1977; Physics) work led to the development of memory devices for computers. Albert Fert’s (2007; Physics) work has made it possible for hard drives to read and write more data. In fact, a 2007 article in ScienceDaily indicated that “it is thanks to this technology [discovered by Albert Fert] that it has been possible to miniaturize hard disks so radically in recent years.”

Finally, flat screen LCD and LED TVs are becoming more popular each year. Alan Heeger (2000; Chemistry) is one Nobel Laureate that we can thank for this. His work with conductive polymers has helped this technology advance. The 2000 Nobel Prize press release stated the following about his work and the impact on LED TVs: “In a few years…, flat television screens based on LED film will become reality, as will luminous traffic signs and information signs.”

Medical Advancements

Probably the most important area to consider is how the work of some of the 75 Nobel Laureates has led to advancements in the field of medicine, including pharmaceuticals, improved understandings of diseases or other medical issues, and new non-pharmaceutical treatments.

 Pharmaceuticals

At least 13 of the 75 have directly contributed to advancement of the pharmaceutical industry. Susumu Tonegawa (1987; Physiology or Medicine) and Peter Doherty (1996; Physiology or Medicine) have both contributed to our understanding of how our immune system protects us from various diseases. Their work has made it possible for scientists to develop vaccines to combat several ailments, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes. The work of Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) has also greatly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. They developed a method for creating new molecules that is more efficient, cheaper, and environmentally friendly. The “Information for the Public” [pdf] on the 2005 chemistry prize web page states that this new process is “an important weapon in the hunt for new pharmaceuticals for treating many of the world’s major diseases.” These diseases include bacterial infections, hepatitis C, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Down’s syndrome, osteoporosis, arthritis, and HIV/AIDS.

Several other of the Laureates supporting repeal of the LSEA have directly impacted the pharmaceutical industry. These include Roald Hoffmann (1981; Chemistry), who introduced theoretical models for chemical reactions; Elias Corey (1990; Chemistry), who developed the theory and methodology of organic synthesis; Kurt Wuthrich (2002; Chemistry), who determined the 3D structure of different biological macromolecules in solution; and Martin Chalfie and Roger Tsien (2008; Chemistry), both of whom worked on the discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein. The contributions of these scientists have dramatically improved our ability to combat several diseases with a variety of medications.

I conclude this section by focusing on the combined efforts of four of the 75 Laureates. The first two, Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, shared the award (2003; Chemistry) for their work with water channels and ion channels in cells. Their discoveries made it possible to develop “new and more effective pharmaceuticals” (NP press release). An article from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine states that because of Peter Agre’s contributions, scientists now have a “fundamental understanding, at the molecular level, of malfunctioning channels associated with many diseases of the kidneys, skeletal muscle, and other organs.” The second two are Venki Ramakrishnan and Thomas Steitz, who shared the award (2009; Chemistry) for their studies of the structure and function of the ribosome. According to the NP press release, these two scientists “generated 3D models that show how different antibiotics bind to the ribosome. These models are now used by scientists in order to develop new antibiotics, directly assisting the saving of lives and decreasing humanity’s suffering.”

Understanding Diseases

Another area influenced by several of the 75 Nobel Laureates is our understanding of diseases and other medical issues, primarily the study of cancer. The American Cancer Society expects [pdf, p. 55] roughly 1.6 million new cases to be diagnosed in the U.S. in 2012. The chances are high that people reading this post know someone who either currently has or previously had cancer. I included this information to highlight how significant the impact of the Laureates’ work has been on our understanding and treatment of this disease. Each of the following Laureates has had a direct impact on the search for a cure: Paul Berg (1980; Chemistry); Sir Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp (1993; Physiology or Medicine); Peter Doherty (1996; Physiology or Medicine); Robert Horvitz and John Sulston (2002; Physiology or Medicine); Aaron Ciechanover and Avram Hershko (2004; Chemistry); Roger Kornberg (2006; Chemistry); and Jack Szostak (2009; Physiology or Medicine).

Cancer isn’t the only area that these Nobel Laureates have impacted. David Baltimore (1975; Physiology or Medicine) is a pioneer in the study of viruses that cause tumors in humans (especially retroviruses like HIV). Erwin Neher (1991; Physiology or Medicine) improved our understanding of diseases like diabetes and cystic fibrosis. Eric Wieschaus’s (1995; Physiology or Medicine) work improved our understanding of the cause of some early miscarriages and birth defects. Stanley Prusiner (1997; Physiology or Medicine) improved our understanding of the cause of dementia-related diseases like Alzheimer’s disease and “mad cow” disease. Arvid Carlsson’s (2000; Physiology or Medicine) work led to the discovery of the cause of Parkinson’s disease as well as advancements in our understanding of schizophrenia and depression. What makes Arvid Carlsson’s contribution so interesting is that, according to an article from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, a treatment for Parkinson’s disease that stemmed from his work is still “the most effective treatment available for Parkinson’s disease.” The interesting part is that he conducted his research in the late 1950s and early 1960s, over 50 years ago!

 Medical Treatments

A final area in which some of these Nobel Laureates have had a direct impact is in non-pharmaceutical medical treatments. Richard Ernst (1991; Chemistry) and Alexei Abrikosov (2003; Physics) have both had an influence on the use of magnetic resonance imaging, better known as MRI. Torsten Wiesel’s (1981; Physiology or Medicine) work on information processing in the visual system led to more effective treatments for congenital cataracts (see also The Rockefeller University). Finally, Craig Mello’s (2006; Physiology or Medicine) work has helped scientists find ways to control high blood pressure and seek potential treatments for “virus infections, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, endocrine disorders, and several other conditions” (NP press release).

Statements of Acclaim

I want to end by sharing some pretty impressive statements about some of the Nobel Laureates who are supporting repeal of the LSEA. These statements speak for themselves:

• Murray Gell-Mann (1969; Physics) – “No scientist has done more to shape our understanding of the universe than Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel Prize-winner often considered the most brilliant physicist of his generation.” (From the 1999 book Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in 20th-Century Physics, by George Johnson)

• Russell Hulse (1993; Physics) – “Hulse and Taylor’s discovery has been ranked by many as among the most important scientific accomplishments of the 20th Century.” (UT-Dallas press release)

• Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina (1995; Chemistry) – “The discoveries [about the ozone layer] led to an international environmental treaty, which, by the end of this year, bans the production of industrial chemicals that reduce the ozone layer.” (Article in The Tech, MIT newspaper)

• Paul Crutzen (1995; Chemistry) – “It was thanks to Paul Crutzen that we skirted a previous global atmospheric threat: the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer. If the warnings from him and his fellow winners of the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, hadn’t come when they did, the Antarctic ozone hole might have proved disastrous.” (Time Magazine article by James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

• Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) – “Metathesis is an example of how important basic science has been applied for the benefit of man, society and the environment.” (NP press release)

• Robert H. Grubbs and Richard Schrock (2005; Chemistry) – “This is what Alfred Nobel had in mind when he created the Nobel Prize — basic research making life easier and better for humankind.” (UC-Riverside article)

• John Mather (2006; Physics) – “On April 29, 1992, the English physicist Stephen Hawking said in an interview in The Times that the COBE [satellite proposed by Mather and launched in 1989] results were ‘the greatest discovery of the century, if not of all times.’” (NP ”Information for the Public”) [pdf]

• Craig Mello (2006; Physiology or Medicine) – “It is very unusual for a piece of work to completely revolutionize the whole way we think about biological processes and regulation, but this has opened up a whole new field in biology.” (Comment by Professor Nick Hastie, director of the Medical Research Council’s Human Genetics Unit (UK), in a BBC News article)

• Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess (2011; Physics) – The journal Science named their discovery of dark energy the “Breakthrough Discovery of the Year” for 1998. (Johns Hopkins University article)

Conclusion

Citizens who are trying to protect the teaching of science are fighting an uphill battle in Louisiana. It is important to point out to the Louisiana Senate Education Committee and to the rest of the Louisiana legislature the contributions of the scientists they are disregarding. Perhaps it would be helpful to just send this document directly to each legislator on the Senate Education Committee. I was already impressed with these 75 Nobel Laureates just for having won the world’s most prestigious prize. However, understanding how their contributions have benefitted society and even directly impacted my own life makes me want to meet them and personally thank them for all they have done — and for their support of such an important effort as the repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Download [pdf]

By Barbara Forrest

UPDATE 2.28.12: Please see here and here.

Most people who have read the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act know that it seeks to undermine not just the teaching of evolution (although that is the primary target), but it also throws in “global warming” as something that teachers should allow students to “critically analyze” (along with the “origins of life” and “human cloning”). And most of our readers also know that Louisiana is still the only state with such a stupid law. Throughout the effort of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS) to stop this bill as it sped through the legislature, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) provided valuable advice and assistance. NCSE is a — no, it’s the — national clearinghouse for assistance in protecting the teaching of science. (Disclosure: I serve on NCSE’s Board of Directors — proudly). For more than a quarter-century, NCSE has come to the aid of parents, teachers, school administrators, and concerned citizens who needed help in fighting off creationist attacks on the teaching of evolution. Now the NCSE has responded to the growing number of attacks on the teaching of climate science.

NCSE is expanding its scope by launching a new climate change initiative to help protect the teaching of climate science in America’s public schools.

Here are some excerpts from NCSE’s press release:

A new initiative in the struggle for quality science education

Science education is under attack—again.

This time it’s under attack by climate change deniers, who ignore a mountain of evidence gathered over the last fifty years that the planet is warming and that humans are largely responsible. These deniers attempt to sabotage science education with fringe ideas, pseudoscience, and outright lies.

But the National Center for Science Education won’t let ‘em get away with it. . . .

In its initiative to defend climate change education, NCSE will:

* Help parents, teachers, and others fight the introduction of climate change/global warming denial and pseudoscience in the classroom.

* Act as a resource center to connect teachers, scientists, and policymakers with the best information available.

* Provide tools and support to ensure that climate change is properly and effectively taught in public schools.

* Aid those testifying before local and state boards of education, and before local, state, and federal legislative committees.

* Connect local activists with one another, and with scientists and other relevant experts.

To help carry out this new initiative, NCSE has brought in two experts Mark McCaffery:

* Mark McCaffrey, a long-time climate literacy expert, joins NCSE as climate change programs and policy director. Previously at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), McCaffrey helped spearhead a number of climate and energy literacy programs, and the creation of the Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN), and testified before Congress about climate and environmental education.

* Dr. Peter Gleick, president and co-founder of The Pacific Institute, joins NCSE’s board of directors. Gleick is a noted hydroclimatologist, an internationally recognized water expert, and a MacArthur Fellow. Gleick’s research and writing address the critical connections between water and human health, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and international conflicts over water resources.

 

It’s important to be clear about what NCSE will not do under this initiative: it will not address issues of policy or make policy recommendations. That is beyond the scope of this new effort.

What We Won’t Do

Climate change necessarily has consequences for policy on the local, state, national, and even global stages. Should something be done to counteract climate change? If so, what? Is slowing down climate change impossible, and should, therefore, efforts be directed toward mitigating and adapting to its effects? Such questions, although important, are beyond the scope of NCSE, which is primarily a science and science education organization, not a policy institute. Some of our topics may touch upon policy issues, but we will not take positions on, for example, the advantages or disadvantages of a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade policy. There is a broad range of solutions; NCSE’s position is that whatever solutions society decides upon, they should be based on sound science.

NCSE will assist in protecting the integrity of the way climate science is taught in public school science classes, just as it has helped protect the teaching of evolution.

NCSE is here to help! You can help us by informing us of any school, school district, or state policy that compromises the integrity of good science, whether the topic is evolution or climate change. We will do what we can to assist those at the grassroots level too. If you are, or know of, a teacher who is feeling pressure about evolution or climate change from parents, administrators, or members of the community, don’t hesitate to get in touch—we can help.

So, Louisiana citizens, please be alert to any attacks on the teaching of climate science in our public schools. Both the LCFS and the NCSE are here to help.

By Barbara Forrest      

OK, readers, who knows what these two pictures have in common?

Give up? OK, here’s the answer:  Both of these pictures are symbols of the screwed-up priorities of the state of Louisiana. On the left, we have a frame from the July 10, 2011, Doonesbury comic strip, which quite rightly ridicules the fact that (a) the state of Louisiana passed the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act in 2008 and (b) the state of Louisiana refused to repeal this law in 2011. In fact, the Senate Education Committee refused to allow SB 70, Sen. Karen Carter Peterson’s repeal bill, out of committee. Rather than voting against it outright, they just voted 5-1 to defer action on the bill, effectively killing it. Only Senator Yvonne Dorsey voted to send the bill to the Senate floor (thank you, Sen. Dorsey).

Now, to the picture on the right. This is the widely respected Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA. World-class scientists at PBRC are doing world-class research, especially on diabetes and obesity. Any scientists in the world could be proud to work here, especially in the new, four-story clinical research building that was just completed, that is, if they could be proud to work here if they could count on having some important stuff — like, say, furniture. On the same day that the Doonesbury cartoon appeared in the Baton Rouge Advocate, the paper also ran this story, “Cuts Hit Pennington,” on the front page.

Construction is ongoing for Pennington’s state-funded, $12 million imaging center building, but there is no timetable to equip or utilize the facility once it is finished in February.

The nutrition and chronic disease center currently finds itself in a state of limbo after going through a decade of growth and improving state support, only to be undercut by two years of state budget cuts that sliced its operating budget dollars by nearly 20 percent.

Only the first two of the four floors of this new facility are currently occupied, with the top two floors sitting empty for the foreseeable future. And PBRC scientists are now viewed outside the state as poachable. In fact, one scientist, Steven Smith, left last year because of the uncertainty surrounding PBRC’s future. And where do you think he went?

One of those top ‘poached’ scientists, Steven Smith left Pennington last year as the clinical research building was being completed to take over as the scientific director of the Burnham Medical Research Institute’s Translational Research Institute for Metabolism and Diabetes in Florida. He said the financial uncertainty and ‘state of limbo; were key factors in his decision to leave.

[See this article about Dr. Smith's hiring. See his Burnham web page.]

Florida, you say? Yes, Florida. Think about it this way. If you are going to be worried about hurricanes, you can just as well worry in a state that has invested $600 million to support your cutting-edge research. And if you’re a scientist at Pennington, you won’t even have to spend any time actually looking for another job. The poachers will come to you! That sounds like a terrific economic development strategy — for Florida.

Timothy Church, director of Pennington’s Preventive Medicine Laboratory, is understandably worried. He said that Pennington’s competitors don’t even have to hire “headhunters,” which can get expensive. If other scientific research centers need top talent, says Church, “You just go to the Pennington directory.” Hey, what a deal! That leaves the poacher-states with even more money to invest in scientific research! Church adds, in what surely has to be a competitor for understatement of the year, “When you’re not opening up new buildings, it’s not optimal.” (Sigh. Repeat sigh.)

So this is where we are in Louisiana, friends. We can’t furnish and staff the top two floors of the new Pennington clinical research building, but we still have a creationist law on the books. And we would have had yet another one if Senator Karen Carter Peterson had not stepped up to the plate to help us stop HB 580, which would have allowed local school boards to spend taxpayer dollars to buy as much supplemental creationist “educational” material as they wanted with little state oversight.

But look on the bright side. The Louisiana legislature passed another bill, which Gov. Jindal signed into law as Act 174, that lets us put television screens in the front seats of our cars. (Don’t worry — we can’t watch while the car is moving.)

By Barbara Forrest

The Baton Rouge Advocate has a great editorial today about Rep. Frank Hoffman’s HB 580, about which the LCFS sent out a press release [pdf] and a detailed analysis [pdf] on June 13. (See LCFS post, June 10, 2011.) The Advocate has it right: this bill does an end run around the established textbook review and adoption process that the Louisiana Family Forum has been trying unsuccessfully to thwart since 2002.

For readers who need some background, here is the Advocate’s June 17, 2011, article. Here is one in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on June 16. Gambit also has a June 17 article.

We quote here a brief excerpt from the Advocate editorial with the recommendation that readers go to the website and read “Our Views: An End Run on Textbooks.” It is the newspaper’s lead editorial today.

Hell hath no fury like a legislator humiliated by a high school student. . . .  [Note: "Legislator" = Rep. Frank Hoffman. "High school student" = Zack Kopplin.]

He [Hoffman] filed House Bill 580 that tinkers — extensively — with BESE’s long-accepted powers over textbook selection. The tangled language of the bill, already passed by the House, appears to give local school boards the option of adopting different texts.

Given Hoffmann’s record promoting creationist nostrums, this is an invitation to boards to reject standard texts in favor of others. . . .

We urge the Senate to reject the Hoffmann bill and leave well enough alone. Louisiana’s education challenges aren’t made any easier by turning school texts into propaganda tracts from narrow-minded interest groups.

We refer readers again to the LCFS analysis of HB 580 [pdf]. We will not say “enjoy.”

The Louisiana Coalition for Science is pleased to post (in alphabetic order) the following statements and letters of support [pdf] for the repeal of the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (added on May 6, 2011)
• American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)
• American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)
• American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
• Clergy Letter Project (added on May 7, 2011)
• Louisiana Association of Biology Educators (LABE)
• Louisiana Science Teachers Association (LSTA)
• National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
• Paul Gross and Lawrence Lerner statements
• Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), cosigned by Society of Systematic Biologists and American Society of Naturalists

Along with Zack Kopplin, we thank all of these organizations and individuals for their support of the repeal effort. Should we receive additional letters and statements, we will update this post.

For readers who were not able to attend the rally at the Capitol today, Zack has posted his  YouTube video.

WAFB also ran a video news segment about the rally. Earlier in the day, Zack was interviewed on the Jim Engster Show on WRKF. Darrell White of the Louisiana Family Forum was included in this interview.

In addition to Zack, who delivered an address to attendees, Dr. Ian Binns spoke on behalf of the Louisiana Coalition for Science. Dr. Kevin Carman, Dean of the College of Science at Louisiana State University, also offered remarks. The Louisiana Coalition for Science thanks both Dr. Binns and Dr. Carman for participating.

Most of all, we thank Zack Kopplin for taking on the task of seeking repeal of the stealth creationist law that should never have been passed. The Louisiana legislature should care enough about what the rest of our fellow Americans think of our state by getting it off the books. But most of all, they should care enough about the education of young people like Zack, who has done what every responsible adult in Louisiana should be doing.

Thank you, Zack.

By Barbara Forrest

On Thursday, April 28, Zack Kopplin will hold a rally at the Capitol in Baton Rouge in support of SB 70, a bill sponsored by Senator Karen Carter Peterson (thank you Senator Peterson!) to repeal the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act, which was passed in 2008. Zack has a Facebook page with information about the rally, and he has information about the repeal effort at Repealcreationism.com. On April 22, Zack was interviewed by WBRZ in Baton Rouge. This young man is doing what every responsible adult in the state of Louisiana should be doing — petitioning the legislature to correct the mistake they made in 2008 by letting themselves be cowed by the threat of political hardball by the Louisiana Family Forum.

The legislative session begins on Monday, April 25. Zack and the Louisiana Coalition for Science are asking concerned citizens to begin calling members of the Senate Education Committee NOW and urge them to vote SB 70 out of committee.  Let’s send this bill out for an “up or down” vote in 2011, as the committee did with SB 733 in 2008. That’s only fair, right? Then call your respective House and Senate members and urge them to support SB 70.

We also need people to turn out for the rally on April 28. Take an early lunch break if you live in Baton Rouge and run down to the Capitol. Bring friends and supporters. There will be a table in the lobby of the Capitol, and concerned citizens can personally lobby their elected representatives while they are there. Lobbying will take place from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

We are also asking organizations in Louisiana to adopt resolutions or sign petitions, which we have made available here for convenience, scan them, and pdf them back to us via e-mail, and we will make sure that they are distributed to legislators. Citizens can also catch up on the news about the repeal effort here.

Zack has done the heavy lifting in this effort. He has sacrificed his time and energy to do what the adults should have done in 2008 and should be doing now. He has obtained the support of 42 of the leading lights of the scientific world — 42 Nobel Prize winners.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science has helped by providing information and resources. The ball is now in your court, fellow citizens.

The following letter has been sent to the Louisiana legislature and to Gov. Bobby Jindal. (Reproduced from Repealcreationism.com, posted by Zack Kopplin, April 21, 2011)

42 Nobel Laureates Call for a Repeal of the LSEA

Dear Members of the Louisiana Legislature,

As Nobel Laureates in various scientific fields, we urge you to repeal the misnamed and misguided Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) of 2008. This law creates a pathway for creationism and other forms of non-scientific instruction to be taught in public school science classrooms.

The warning flags many of us raised about this law have now been proven justified. Members of the Livingston Parish School Board recently announced their desire to include creationism in the science curriculum for the 2011-2012 school year. Clearly, the LSEA is well understood by Louisiana school administrators and public officials as having created an avenue to incorporate the teaching of creationism into science curricula in Louisiana schools.

Louisiana’s students deserve to be taught proper science rather than religion presented as science. Science offers testable, and therefore falsifiable, explanations for natural phenomena. Because it requires supernatural explanations of natural phenomena, creationism does not meet these standards. Seventy-two Nobel Laureates addressed these issues in 1987 in an amicus brief in the Edwards vs. Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court case, which originated in Louisiana after the passage of a 1981 creationist law:

“Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations; without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith. Because the scope of scientific inquiry is consciously limited to the search for naturalistic principles, science remains free of religious dogma and is thus an appropriate subject for public-school instruction. . . .

The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever-increasing body of observations that give information about underlying ‘facts.’ Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method involves the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation for those facts. To be a legitimate scientific ‘hypothesis,’ an explanatory principle must be consistent with prior and present observations and must remain subject to continued testing against future observations. An explanatory principle that by its nature cannot be tested is outside the realm of science.

The process of continuous testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational or experimental support. Such hypotheses become known as scientific ‘theories.’ If a theory successfully explains a large and diverse body of facts, it is an especially ‘robust’ theory. If it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed, it is an especially ‘reliable’ theory. Even the most robust and reliable theory, however, is tentative. A scientific theory is forever subject to reexamination and — as in the case of Ptolemaic astronomy — may ultimately be rejected after centuries of viability. . . .

A thorough scientific education should introduce these concepts about the hierarchy of scientific ideas. Such an introduction would permit the student to relate the substantive findings of science to the process of science. Just as children should understand and appreciate the scientific theories that offer the most robust and reliable naturalistic explanations of the universe, children should also understand and appreciate the essentially tentative nature of science. In an ideal world, every science course would include repeated reminders that each theory presented to explain our observations of the universe carries this qualification: ‘as far as we know now, from examining the evidence available to us today.’ . . .

Scientific education should accurately portray the current state of substantive scientific knowledge. Even more importantly, scientific education should accurately portray the premises and processes of science. Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world.”

Scientific knowledge is crucial to twenty-first-century life. Biological evolution is foundational in many fields, including biomedical research and agriculture. It aids us in understanding, for example, how to fight diseases like HIV and how to grow plants that will survive in different environments. Because science plays such a large role in today’s world and because our country’s economic future is dependent upon the United States’ retaining its competitiveness in science, it is vital that students have a sound education about major scientific concepts and their applications.

We strongly urge that the Louisiana Legislature repeal this misguided law. Louisiana students deserve an education that will allow them to compete with their peers across the country and the globe.

Sincerely,

Nobel Laureates

Sir Harold Kroto, Chemistry, 1996

Sir Richard Roberts, Physiology or Medicine, 1993

Elias J. Corey, Chemistry, 1990

Steven Weinberg, Physics, 1979

Herbert Kroemer, Physics, 2000

Roderick MacKinnon, Chemistry, 2003

Douglas D. Osheroff, Physics, 1996

Alan J. Heeger, Chemistry, 2000

Robert Curl, Chemistry, 1996

Kurt Wüthrich, Chemistry, 2002

Martin Chalfie, Chemistry, 2008

Jack W. Szostak, Physiology or Medicine, 2009

Phillip A. Sharp, Physiology or Medicine, 1993

Craig C. Mello, Physiology or Medicine, 2006

Stanley Prusiner, Physiology or Medicine, 1997

Roger Y. Tsien, Chemistry, 2008

David Gross, Physics, 2004

Roger Kornberg, Chemistry, 2006

Robert Howard Grubbs, Chemistry, 2005

Sidney Altman, Chemistry, 1989

Jerome I. Friedman, Physics, 1990

Thomas A. Steitz, Chemistry, 2009

Venki Ramakrishnan, Chemistry, 2009

Horst Stormer, Physics, 1998

Peter C. Doherty, Physiology or Medicine, 1996

Gerhard Ertl, Chemistry, 2007

Richard Schrock, Chemistry, 2005

John L. Hall, Physics, 2005

Riccardo Giacconi, Physics, 2002

Wolfgang Ketterle, Physics, 2001

Jack Steinberger, Physics, 1988

Robert C. Richardson, Physics, 1996

Frank Wilczek, Physics, 2004

Alexei Abrikosov, Physics, 2003

Roy Glauber, Physics, 2005

Susumu Tonegawa, Physiology or Medicine, 1987

Anthony J. Leggett, Physics, 2003

Russell Hulse, Physics, 1993

Eric Wieschaus, Physiology or Medicine, 1995

Rudolph A. Marcus, Chemistry, 1992

William D. Phillips, Physics, 1997

Dudley Herschbach, Chemistry, 1986

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE / Louisiana Coalition for Science  / http://lasciencecoalition.org

Download press release [pdf]

Louisiana Coalition for Science Supports SB 70 to Repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act

Baton Rouge, LA, April 18, 2011 — In solidarity with Baton Rouge Magnet High School senior Zachary Kopplin’s effort to repeal the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act (www.repealcreationism.com), the Louisiana Coalition for Science supports Senator Karen Carter Peterson’s bill, SB 70, which will repeal the law in its entirety. In the interest of Louisiana public school students, the legislature should pass the bill and Gov. Jindal should sign it. (See http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=11RS&billid=SB70&doctype=ALL.)

Under the guise of promoting “critical thinking,” a creationist code term, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) permits public school science teachers to use creationist materials to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

The LSEA was written by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a Focus on the Family affiliate that promotes creationism as part of its mission “to present biblical principles in the centers of influence.” The LFF partnered with the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle, Washington, think tank that promotes intelligent design creationism nationwide. DI helped write the LSEA to reflect its “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution,” a stealth creationism statute that DI has promoted in almost a dozen states since 2008. So far, no other state has adopted such legislation. (See DI’s model statute at www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php.)

The LSEA has had negative effects both on Louisiana and on public school science education policy.

• In August 2008, the president of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology called on scientific societies to boycott states that pass such legislation. On February 5, 2009, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology informed Gov. Jindal that it would hold its 2011 meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, rather than New Orleans and that they will not return to Louisiana while the LSEA remains in effect. (See www.sicb.org/resources/LouisianaLetterJindal.pdf.)
• In January 2009, the LFF persuaded the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to delete a crucial prohibition against “materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind” from Bulletin 741, the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, which implements the LSEA at the parish level. Consequently, school districts have no clear guidelines prohibiting creationist materials in science classes. Teachers can use anything they want until they get caught. (For the example of Danny Pennington, former West Monroe High School biology teacher, see National Public Radio, “Louisiana Law Protects Evolution Skeptics in Class,” February 13, 2009, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100585622.)
• In September 2009, the LFF influenced BESE’s Bulletin 741 policy concerning citizen complaints. The policy stacks the review procedure in favor of creationists when parents or concerned citizens file complaints about creationist materials used in science classes. The policy also undermines Department of Education staff experts. (See Louisiana Coalition for Science, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2009/09/30/creationists-dictate-bese-policy/)
• In fall 2010, the LFF tried but failed to block state approval of new biology textbooks for public schools. Nonetheless, LFF Executive Director Rev. Gene Mills vowed to “make crystal clear to superintendents all over Louisiana” that schools are not bound by BESE’s approval of the new textbooks (Rev. Gene Mills, End of Week newsletter, December 10, 2010).
• In July 2010, invoking the LSEA, the Livingston Parish School Board instructed staff to study using the LSEA to add creationism to the science curriculum for the 2011-2012 academic year. This proves that school boards understand the LSEA as a creationist law. (See “School Board Might OK Teaching Creationism,” Baton Rouge Advocate, July 24 2010, www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html?showAll=y&c=y.)
• The March 15, 2011, Tangipahoa Parish School Board minutes note that board member Sandra Bailey-Simmons told the Curriculum Committee that “Retired Judge Darrell White has requested to come speak to the Committee concerning the Science Education Act.” (See www.tangischools.org/BDMinutes/2011/Board%20Minutes%2003-15-11.pdf.) White, an LFF operative, helped promote the LSEA. The April 17, 2011, Hammond, LA, Sunday Star reports that the board’s April 19 meeting will consider “Curriculum . . . committee reports [that] include discussion about evolutionism verse [sic] creationism within the science department” (emphasis added). This information shows that the LFF is using the LSEA to promote flat-out creationism, as LSEA opponents predicted in 2008.

Concerned citizens must call Senate Education Committee members and their respective House and Senate representatives and ask them to vote in favor of SB 70.

* Contacts: (1) Barbara Forrest, barbara.forrest@gmail.com/985-974-4244 (2) Patsye Peebles, patsye.peebles@gmail.com

Donald Aguillard with Susan Epperson (photo by Eugenie Scott)

By Barbara Forrest

One of the hallmarks of good citizenship is stepping up to correct a wrong against children. Louisiana has such a citizen in the person of Dr. Donald W. Aguillard, who was the lead plaintiff in Aguillard v. Louisiana, the case that eventually produced the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of creationism in public school science classes is unconstitutional. Louisiana parents, students, and science teachers owe him a debt of gratitude.

Most Louisianians probably have no idea what Dr. Aguillard did on behalf of public school science education in the early 1980s. So it is very nice to see that the National Center for Science Education has featured him in the January-February 2011 issue of Reports of the National Center for Science Education (RNCSE). He is pictured here along with Susan Epperson, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s first ruling on creationism, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). Readers can download the article by Randy Moore, “People and Places: Don Aguillard,” here [pdf].

Dr. Aguillard is now the superintendent of the St. Mary Parish School District. If you know him, say “thank you” for what he did for the children of Louisiana thirty years ago.