Understanding Our Audiences: The Design and Evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Working Together to Address Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

NAS: speaking the truth to power for 150 years

The Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion [National Academy of Sciences (NAS)] released its final report [National Research Council (NRC) 2005] in January 2005, recommending a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate of 0.0007 mg/kg-day. In a commentary published online on 25 May 2005, Ginsberg and Rice (2005) criticized the adequacy of the NAS committee’s scientific deliberations, mischaracterizing the studies reviewed by the committee and second-guessing its conclusions. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA’s) previous draft RfD of 0.00003 mg/kg-day (U. S. EPA 2002)—and by inference the Massachusetts perchlorate risk assessment [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) 2004] that mirrored the U.S. EPA’s approach and which Ginsberg and Rice peer reviewed—is more scientifically defensible. The NAS committee was composed of 15 leading physicians and scientists with combined range of expertise to evaluate every scientific aspect of the perchlorate database and of the U.S. EPA’s assessment of that database. The makeup of this committee and its credentials are available on the NAS website (NAS 2004). The NAS committee studied and deliberated for more than 15 months before issuing its report. Those deliberations included three public meetings during which it accepted verbal and/or written comments from the U.S. EPA, other government agencies, industry, states, environmental groups, and attorneys. After careful study and consideration of the scientific studies that formed the basis for the U.S. EPA’s 2002 draft RfD as well as the 2004 Massachusetts risk assessment (Mass DEP 2004), the NAS committee considered several of the animal studies … to be flawed in their design and execution. Conclusions based on those studies, particularly the neurodevelopmental studies, were not supported by the results of the studies. Although Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the NAS committee should have considered the threshold for measurable iodine uptake inhibition “adverse” and that the NAS inadvertently left out the “A” in NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level), the committee decisively stated that “inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid clearly is not an adverse effect.” The committee carefully considered the issue of a NOEL (no observed effect level) and a NOAEL. Based on a clinical study of patients receiving perchlorate long term, the NAS established the NOAEL as 0.4 mg/kg-day (57 times higher than its identified NOEL). Ginsberg and Rice (2005) further expressed concerns regarding perchlorate in breast milk and the subsequent possibility of decreased breast milk iodine, citing Kirk et al. (2005) and Gibbs (2004). Kirk et al. (2005) reported perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk samples and noted that “if we take all the available data, there is no meaningful correlation between the perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk.” The study from Chile that Ginsberg and Rice refer to as Gibbs (2004) is now published as Tellez et al. (2005). The study found that iodine nutrition of pregnant women in Chile is very similar to that in the United States. Tellez et al. (2005) found no maternal or neonatal perchlorate-related thyroid effects or decreases in breast milk iodine with perchlorate doses spanning the 0.0007–0.007 mg/kg-day range. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) argued that perchlorate database deficiencies require an additional uncertainty factor of 3–10 because of key data gaps, citing breast milk concerns and the extrapolation from a 14-day exposure study to chronic exposure. The NAS committee (NRC 2005) considered this and concluded that if inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid is duration-dependent, the effect should decrease rather than increase with time, because compensation would increase the activity of the sodium-iodide symporter and therefore increase iodide transport into the thyroid. Evidence has subsequently shown this to be the case (Braverman et al. 2005). The California EPA perchlorate risk assessment (California EPA 2004) relied on the same studies as the NRC report (NRC 2005). The “point of departure” was based on iodine uptake inhibition by Greer et al. (2002), and a total uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to account for interindividual variability. After reviewing the NRC report (NRC 2005), the California EPA elected not to change its risk assessment or public health goal (California EPA 2005). In summary, the concerns presented by Ginsberg and Rice (2005) have already been addressed thoroughly by experts on perchlorate and thyroid toxicology and were found to be unsubstantiated. The NAS committee and other experts came to this conclusion based on a comprehensive review of the science in the field, not based entirely on an individual study, which has been mischaracterized by Ginsberg and Rice.

Evolution is considered a unifying theme in biological science (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). Evolution is such a powerful idea that its application to all grade levels can serve as a guide for instruction and curriculum alignment (Haury, 1996). Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) stress the significance of evolutionary theory in biology and advocate teaching evolution in schools (Blackwell et al., 2003; Haury, 1996; NAS, 2008). According to Blackwell et al. (2003), Without evolutionary theory, biology is divested of needed theme, coherence, understanding, and interpretation of relationships. Evolutionary theory provides connection among biological topics, accentuating the investigative nature of science and power of scientific discoveries. The tenets of evolutionary theory have been at issue among scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and the public since Darwin first revealed his ideas over 150 years ago (Brem et al., 2003). Today, teaching evolution in public schools continues to be viewed with disparagement by many in positions of power and decision-making. Throughout the U.S., state boards of education are making decisions that may eliminate or severely limit students' opportunity to learn about evolutionary theory. In Kansas and Oklahoma, the state boards of education have modified or removed evolution from the state objectives (McKeachie et al., 2002). The state of Texas reviews the status of teaching evolution in 2008 as they work to revise their state science education standards. Also in 2008, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board debated the acceptance of a science education Masters' degree program emphasizing creationism from the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research Graduate School. These actions indicate an alarming trend that impacts the nature and quality of learning experiences that science teachers are able to provide for their students. Notwithstanding such omnipresent controversy, evolution is a core theme underlying the biology curricula. Along with the science of evolution, removing evolution from curricula also eliminates the historical perspective such topics bring to the table. Dagher and BouJaoude (1997) support the need to maintain such controversial topics in science, contending, Most of the revolutions in the history of science involved challenges to worldviews. Evolution makes clear the case that many new theories in science challenge current views and ways of thinking and, in so doing, exemplify the very nature of science as a discipline. Though evolution continues to endure great public scrutiny, in the scientific community evolution is the key to understanding life. As stated by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2008), ... evolution is a core concept in biology that is based both in the study of past life forms and in the study of the relatedness and diversity of present-day organisms. The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution. Evolution is multi-purposeful, such that students may learn the science of what the theory states, the social significance of the theory, and its importance in understanding the very nature of science as tentative and dynamic. Evolution epitomizes what science is, meaning that the theory is supported by empirical, data-driven evidence and explanations (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). Clearly, new evidence in evolutionary theory has altered scientific understandings through time and will continue to do so as new discoveries and evidence are added to the existing knowledge base. But evolutionary theory also has implications regarding the way human behavior is interpreted, human notions of spirituality, and the purpose of human existence (Brem et al., 2003). It is important to recognize that spirituality and the philosophical purposes of life are separate aspects of human existence from the science of evolution, as they are not based on empirical data and evidence. …

Arch Toxicol (2014) 88:171–172 DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1176-4 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter from Ralph J Cicerone regarding Edward Calabrese’s paper published online first on August 4th: “how the US national academy of sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.” [DOI 10.1007/s00204‑013‑1105‑6, Review Article] R. J. Cicerone · K. D. Crowley Received: 18 November 2013 / Accepted: 21 November 2013 / Published online: 6 December 2013 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 Dear Dr. Hengstler We write to express disappointment with the inappropri- ate title and unsubstantiated content of Edward Calabrese’s paper published online on 4 August: “How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on can- cer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foun- dations of the linear dose response” (Calabrese 2013). Professor Calabrese accuses 1946 Nobel Laureate Her- man Muller and his colleague Curt Stern of a pattern of deception in their treatment of experiments by another scientist. Calabrese further accuses Muller of inappropri- ately influencing fellow members of the National Research Council’s Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) (NRC 1956) about the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in humans. Calabrese uses correspondence between Muller and Stern concerning experiments on germ cell mutations in male fruit flies, along with subsequent scientific publications by both scientists, to make unsubstantiated insinuations about Mul- ler and Stern’s motivations: For example, that Muller was “…[p]rotecting his reputation by ensuring that his mislead- ing comments would not be discovered while still aggres- sively pushing acceptance of the linearity agenda” (p. 2). And “In the absence of new data, Stern decided upon a new strategy to ‘save’ the single-hit linearity dose response” (p. R. J. Cicerone Chair, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA K. D. Crowley (*) Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, 500 Fifth St, NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA e-mail: kcrowley@nas.edu 3). Calabrese also makes ad hominem remarks about Mul- ler to support his accusations: For example, “… it was well known that Muller would try to win arguments by exaggera- tion and overstatement” (p. 3). It seems clear from Calabrese’s factual descriptions that Muller and Stern were trying to make sense of experiments that yielded unexpected results. It is not surprising that they would question these results and seek to have them repli- cated. Calabrese clearly disagrees with Stern and Muller’s scientific judgments, but he is able to marshal only circum- stantial evidence to support his accusations that they sought to suppress the experiments. In the end, the experiments were published (Caspari and Stern 1948) and served to spur-on additional scientific investigations. Calabrese also asserts that Muller “[m]ade deceptive statements during his Noble (sic) Prize Lecture … that were intended to promote the acceptance of the linear dose–response model for risk assessment for ionizing radi- ation” (p. 1). This assertion is based on statements made by Muller in his lecture in support of the linearity hypothesis even though he had received the manuscript containing the experimental results some 5 weeks earlier. Given Muller and Stern’s reluctance to accept the results of these experi- ments without replication, Muller’s decision not to men- tion them is certainly not surprising. It is unfair to call his behavior deceptive. Calabrese provides no evidence that Muller inappropri- ately influenced the BEAR committee or that the NAS or the BEAR committee misled anyone. The BEAR commit- tee considered a large body of scientific work and exercised its own considerable scientific judgment in reaching a con- sensus conclusion that “the genetic harm [from radiation] is proportional to the total dose” (NRC 1956, p. 23). Moreo- ver, the BEAR committee noted that this conclusion was generally accepted by the genetics community (ibid).

CBE is pleased to launch a new feature called Points of View (POV).POVs address issues faced by many people within the life sciences education realm.We will present two or more opposing POVs back-to-back on a particular topic to promote

Allocating Scarce Resources in Disasters: Emergency Department Principles

A resumé is given of the determinations of the value of the Faraday. Values obtained by silver deposition, iodide oxidation, oxalate oxidation, the omegatron, and silver dissolution are reviewed. All values are converted to the unified 12C international scale of atomic weights using the international atomic weights of 1967. Values of the Faraday are given in terms of both the NBS (legal) and absolute units of electrical measure. In the latter the new value for the acceleration due to gravity is used in computing the absolute value of electric current. On this basis and using the atomic weight of silver determined by Shields, Craig, and Dibeler, and converting to the 12C scale, the value of the Faraday is 96,486.9 ± 1.6 absolute coulombs per gram-equivalent which differs by only 1 part per million from the value recommended by the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. If the atomic weight of silver recommended in 1967 by the International Atomic Weight Commission is used, the Faraday on the new gravity value is 96,486.5 ± 1.6 absolute coulombs per gram-equivalent which differs by 5 parts per million from that recommended by the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. No change in the value of the Faraday adopted by the NAS - NRC Committee is recommended.

The Identification of Non-Artifactual Archaeological Materials, Edited by Walter W. Taylor. Publication 565, National Academy of Sciences — National Research Council, Washington, 1957. 64 pp. - Volume 24 Issue 4Part1

In the paper by S. Irmay in the August 1958, issue of the Transactions, page 705, the last line, Eq. (34) should readequation imageinstead of as shown, the radical having been omitted ia the left‐hand member.The National Academy of Sciences ‐ National Research Council will again assist the National Science Foundation in its eighth regular predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship programs. There is the plan to award about 1000 graduate and 200 postdoctoral fellowships under these programs for the next academic year. Fellowships are open to all citizens of the United States and are awarded solely on the basis of ability in mathematical, physical, medical, biological, and engineering sciences. The closing date for the postdoctoral fellowships is December 22,1958, and for the predoctoral fellowships, January 5, 1959. Inquiries should be addressed to the Fellowship Office, National Academy of Sciences ‐ National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N. W., Washington 25, D. C.

Are we adequately protecting vulnerable patients in longitudinal observational studies?

We have investigated the temperature dependence of the electron effective mass in Mn/sub x/Hg/sub 1/minus/x/Se crystals (0 < /times/ /le/ 0.1) in the T = 90-300 K temperature range. We have determined that the temperature-dependent changes in the band gas (/var epsilon//sub g/), in the band diagram nonparabolicity, and in the conduction band carrier concentration have a strong effect on the temperature dependence of the carrier effective mass at the Fermi level m/sub /xi///star/ = f(T).

This paper describes a summit on Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape organized by a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and held at the Carnegie Institution for Science on December 15, 2011. This summit followed a similar event organized by Dr. Jill Biden, spouse of the Vice President, and held at the White House in October 2010, which sought to bring national attention to the changing missions and purposes of community colleges in contemporary American society.1 The NRC/NAE event built on the White House summit, while focusing on the changing roles of community colleges in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. An in-depth summary of the summit was prepared by the NRC and NAE for publication in late Spring 2012 by the National Academies Press (NRC and National Academy of Engineering, 2012 ). This paper provides a synopsis of that report, which is available at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13399, and emphasizes how we can use the report to improve STEM education for our students, but also how much progress still needs to be made to realize this ideal.

“On October 26, 2007, Ms. Comer forwarded an e-mail from her TEA email account to a group of people that announced a presentation on creationism and intelligent design entitled ‘Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse.' The e-mail states that the speaker is a board member of a science education organization that opposes teaching creationism in public education. Ms. Comer's e-mail suggests endorsement of the speaker and suggests that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.” -Excerpts from a memorandum concerning disciplinary action against Christine Castillo-Comer, the Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency (TEA), November 5, 2007 “Florida Senator Ronda Storms, a Republican from Valrico, is taking on the theory of evolution. On Friday she introduced an Academic Freedom Act designed to tweak the state's recently adopted educational standard that calls for science teachers to teach evolution. Storms said the new bill merely says teachers should have the freedom to teach what they want, including theories that may contradict the prevalent theories of biological and chemical evolution. The bill does not mention creationism or intelligent design. The basis of her bill came from activists who failed in February to persuade the state Board of Education to allow the leeway. The board voted 4-3 two weeks ago to explicitly require the teaching of evolution.” -Reported by Keith Morelli in The Tampa Tribune, March 3, 2008. With prominent American politicians dismissing evolution, the Texas educational authority claiming it must remain neutral regarding the teaching of evolution and not creationist viewpoints, and Florida in the midst of a heated debate on their new educational standards, puzzled scientists must once again scratch their heads in disbelief and ask what the heck is going on in this country? There is no doubt that evolution, while overwhelmingly accepted as fact in the scientific community, remains a contentious issue in the larger public domain and an especially troublesome one for some school boards. Among the favored tactics used to influence science curricula in public schools are the arguments that evolution is “just a theory not a fact,” science teachers should be encouraged to “teach the controversy,” and students should learn about so-called “alternatives to evolution,” including intelligent design and other religious beliefs on the origin of life. So what exactly does the average American think about evolution and the importance of teaching about it in their children's science classes? In an unusual show of solidarity, 17 scientific and educational societies pooled their resources to support a national public opinion survey on how Americans feel about the teaching of evolution in public schools and on attitudes toward science and scientists. An additional goal was to explore ways of increasing their appreciation of the significance of evolution. This unique coalition of societies1 represented science teachers, biologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists, and social scientists, and included such influential groups as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). The results, which were recently published in a coordinated manner in several scientific journals,2 newsletters,3 and on the Web (http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/sciencecoalition.htm) were somewhat reassuring. The majority of respondents accepted that all life evolved (62%) and favored teaching evolution in sciences classes (53%). Similar to another recent study (Miller et al.,2006), the data showed a link between scientific knowledge and acceptance of evolution: Although only 23% of respondents were able to answer three basic science questions correctly, those who could were much more likely to favor the teaching of evolution in public schools than those who could not. An important message of the survey was that the results unambiguously pointed to a role for scientists in sharing their knowledge with the public and in promoting quality science education. Respondents not only held the scientific community in high esteem (over 70% rated medical researchers favorably), but over 75% were interested in hearing from scientists, science teachers, and medical professionals on scientific topics, including evolution. Americans' high opinion of scientists is an extension of the value they place on science itself. Recognizing the importance of science to improving public health, over 60% of respondents—regardless of whether they favored teaching evolution, creationism, or intelligent design—ranked developing drugs and curing disease as the most important contribution science makes to society. Moreover, 61% viewed the contribution of evolutionary biology to medical science as a convincing reason to teach the topic in science classrooms. These data underscore the importance of stressing the connection between evolution and scientific advancements to the public and the relevance of this knowledge to their health and well-being. Nowhere is the topic of evolution more interconnected than with the study of developmental biology. Understanding the establishment of pattern and form in a developing embryo necessitates a greater appreciation of the genes that control these processes across species. It has become impossible to describe embryonic development without considering the conserved roles of transcription factors and members of signaling pathways, components of the so-called genetic toolkit, that are used reiteratively and in different contexts (refer to Carroll,2005). The techniques of molecular biology provided us with an unprecedented ability to probe evolutionary relationships between organisms, developmental events, and anatomical structures, and led to the unified field of evolutionary developmental biology or “evo-devo” (for a nice historical review of the steps leading up to this synthesis see Gilbert,2003). Nowadays, it is inconceivable to ask questions in developmental biology without considering their evolutionary framework (i.e., De Robertis,2008). Furthermore, many of the conserved genes and regulatory pathways discovered by developmental biologists have been implicated in human diseases such as cancer. However, outside of our own laboratories and lecture halls, is there an obvious way for developmental biologists to get the message out that an understanding and appreciation of evolutionary biology is critical to the advancement of scientific knowledge as well as to biomedical research? Some of our colleagues have been deeply involved in this effort. A leader of the evo-devo movement, Sean B. Carroll, has written two highly accessible and colorful books describing the many wondrous examples of biological diversity and their underlying molecular genetic logic (Carroll,2005, 2006). Together with developmental biologist David Kingsley, he also designed a special lecture series on Charles Darwin and evolution for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that was specifically geared for high school students and has served as a valuable teaching resource (http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/index.html). Another developmental biologist concerned with students' ignorance of basic scientific facts took a different tack. Mike Klymkowsky, in addition to his “Leave No Child Behind: Teach Evolution” bumper sticker campaign, has spearheaded the Biological Concept Inventory Project (http://bioliteracy.net/) “to generate, test, and distribute tools needed to determine whether students are learning what teachers think they are teaching.” Ultimately, he and his colleagues expect these assessment tools will help undergraduates develop a deeper conceptual understanding of biological principles, including evolution (Klymkowsky and Garvin-Doxas,2008). Others have taken more radical approaches to educate the public about the difference between fundamental facts and fundamentalist viewpoints. Paul Z. Myers, a zebrafish developmental biologist, uses the power of the Internet. He developed his blog site Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula) as a discussion venue for, as he puts it, “evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” On this highly popular, entertaining, and usually controversial site, Myers not only counters antievolution movements head-on, but he discusses biological topics as esoteric as the reproductive practices of cephalopods. Pharyngula was listed by Nature as the top-ranked science blog in 2005 and is still going strong. Learn about the issues. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences updated their instructive booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism4 that provides a comprehensive review of the evidence for evolution and sets out the arguments in a clear and direct way (refer to Ayala,2008). You can also peruse Judge John Jones's summary opinion on the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which he ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in public school science classrooms. The opinion is a masterful and scholarly document that not only summarizes the 2005 case but also outlines the tactics and logic flaws of current anti-evolution movements (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). Assaults on science education continue to appear at the local and state level with alarming regularity. Stay informed of these activities. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit organization established to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools, maintains a useful listing of current events and a log of ongoing attempts to modify science curricula (http://www.natcenscied.org/). You might be quite surprised to discover what anti-science initiatives are operating in your own state, county, or school district. Weigh in on the debate. Write letters to your school board, public officials, and media outlets when anti-evolution initiatives emerge in your community. There are many useful resources to assist you in learning how to frame a letter or Op-Ed article so it will likely be published in your local newspaper (check out http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/evolutionresources.htm). Join and get involved in your state's Citizens for Science, “a network of grassroots organizations devoted to protecting and promoting science education” (http://citizensforscience.org/who_are_we). These groups foster communication and cooperative action on science education issues. Celebrate the Year of Science 2009 or organize a Darwin Day 2009 event at your institution or in your community. The opportunities are limitless. Some already planned activities are public lectures on science, a scientific photography contest for students, and paleontology field trips (http://www.copusproject.org/yearofscience2009 and http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/home/2009.php). Start your own neighborhood Science Café. Cafes are popping up all over the country to provide an opportunity for people with no science background to engage in informal discussions of evolution and other scientific issues (http://www.sciencecafes.org/what.html). Work with clergy members to organize a talk during Evolution Weekend 2009 or serve as a consultant to those who may have questions about the science associated with evolution (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm). Dialogue between clergy and scientists is an effective way to communicate the importance of teaching evolution and that scientific and religious perspectives need not be incompatible. Indeed, when it came to the topic of evolution, respondents of the Coalition survey were eager to hear from clergy as well as from scientific professionals. Put your scientific knowledge to use by offering to serve as a resource for science teachers or school boards who may need an expert lecturer on certain topics or help enriching curricular materials. A great example of science outreach is a project that brings a hands-on zebrafish developmental genetics unit to urban public schools (Schaefer and Farber, 2006). If you are more comfortable in your own environment, consider inviting high school students to visit your laboratory where they can see how science is conducted first-hand. On the basis of your own research, write an article describing an interesting lesson plan or laboratory exercise that would be adaptable to the science classroom. A new journal Evolution: Education and Outreach recently made its debut with the goal of connecting science teachers and scientists by publishing “cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on a variety of instructional levels” (http://www.springer.com/life+sci/journal/12052). Become involved in your scientific society. Most, including the Society for Developmental Biology, and the American Association of Anatomists, which sponsors this journal, have active public affairs committees that address diverse policy issues and further these efforts through their membership with FASEB. You could also learn how to represent your society directly as a member of FASEB's Science Policy Committee. Organize an evolution education workshop for teachers at your society's annual meeting. Such workshops provide the opportunity to share resources and promote interactions between scientists and science teachers. The University of California Museum of Paleontology partnered with NCSE to develop a blue print for organizing events of this kind (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ncte/twb/). Alternatively, work with your own academic institution to put together a summer program for teachers. It is not necessary to start from scratch as excellent models are already in place. For example, the SC Life program at Clemson University offers graduate courses and special summer workshops for middle and high school teachers, including one that is designed to help teachers better understand evolutionary theory, learn how scientists conduct research in evolutionary biology, and implement creative inquiry techniques to improve their students' comprehension of evolution. You can take advantage of SC Life course materials for your own nonprofit educational activities (http://www.clemson.edu/SCLife/). Teachers can have the greatest impact, but they need the engagement and support of scientists. Although researchers may be reluctant or even apprehensive about showing a more public face and serving as science advocates, it is critical that we do so. The opponents of science literacy are not just sitting around. Their Web sites, articles, and books touting anti-evolution viewpoints are overwhelming, as has been the rising surge of initiatives to control school boards and modify science curricula. The strategies they employ might seem harmless enough (why not “teach the controversy”?) but their agenda clearly is not. The survey by the Coalition of Scientific Societies demonstrates the essential part scientists can take in combating persistent efforts to diminish science education in the United States. Developmental biologists are clearly one group that has the expertise, the creativity, and the incentive to live up to this challenge. We thank the members of the FASEB Science Policy Subcommittee Educating About Evolution for their work on this issue and Carrie Wolinetz and Howard Garrison of FASEB for their helpful comments. M.E.H. also acknowledges the advice of Sally Kutzer and Lissa Rotundo, high school science teachers at the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, and the Pew Science and Society Institute.

NationalResearch Council (NRC). 1 That issue also contains an article by ASCB member William Wood (pp.123-127) about a recent NRC report on advanced study programs for high-school students (with a focus on the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics), as well as a review of the report (NRC, 2002).In a future issue of CBE, NRC program officer Kerry Brenner will describe a major report from the Academies, BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists.Here, I discuss three other education activities across the National Academies that are likely to be of interest to biologists.The National Academies publishes some 250 technical and popular reports each year on topics related to virtually all aspects of science and public policy. 2It convenes more than 500 committees annually with the aid of more than 6000 committee members.The NRC is comprised of autonomous disciplinary boards and study committees that are overseen by larger divisions.As with other types of institutions, collaboration is sometimes constrained by financial and other barriers.However, under Alberts's leadership, the National Academies is making a concerted effort to foster greater coordination and collaboration among its education initiatives, with the Center for Education serving as the nucleus of education knowledge that can be shared with other program units in the disciplines.For example, while the NRC's Board on Life Sciences assumed primary responsibility for producing