2013-05-19T23:58:06-04:00 Alan I. Leshner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=alan-i-leshner Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alan I. Leshner Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.817172 2011-02-03T18:25:30-05:00 2011-05-25T18:30:24-04:00

Alan I. Leshner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-i-leshner/
Richard Cizik, the former top lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founded the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good in 2010. A main goal of his group is "to articulate a new form of engagement that doesn't demonize science or scientists."

Cizik, who helped launch the Evangelical Climate Initiative acknowledging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, is firm in his belief that an acceptance of scientific evidence is crucial to society as a whole -- and to the evangelical community itself.

Cizik will speak about faith and scientific understanding at the 2011 AAAS Annual Meeting in mid-February, in a symposium entitled "Evangelicals, Science, and Policy." Cizik promises to bring new perspective to the topic.

"From our vantage point as new evangelicals, we don't see a conflict between science and religion. Millions of evangelicals have reasoned that 'scientists are evolutionists, so therefore we're going to reject what they say about climate change,'" Cizik says. "That viewpoint is born, not of deep faith, but of a particular political adherence."

In other words, from one side of the playing field.

Cizik's organization encourages dialogue by framing issues such as climate change as "values-centric." He says, "An issue involving science can also be an issue involving care for the planet, public health and security," values held deeply by the religious community.

Also speaking at this month's science and religion session at the AAAS Annual Meeting is Stanford neuroscientist William Newsome, a devout Christian. From an early age, Newsome says he felt appreciation and respect for both science and religion, enhanced by hunting for fossils with his Baptist minister father.

"To me, both science and religion are important to a well-lived, fulfilled life," he says.

A lauded researcher, Newsome says he feels "it doesn't serve a religion or its adherents to deny the contributions of science." On the other hand, Newsome says his religion allows him to look at science critically and to consider aspects of life that may not lend themselves to the scientific method. For instance, intuition and commitment without proof may be more appropriate, not only in matters of faith, but also when deciding where to live, whom to marry, or how to proceed in the face of tragedy.

Anyone who thinks the views of religious groups in society are irrelevant to science should remember that those same views affect public support for science and science education. According to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press, nearly half of the American public believes that life originated as described literally in the Bible. Meanwhile, only 28 percent of high school biology teachers consistently introduce evidence of evolution and incorporate evolution as a unifying theme in the study of biology, according to research published in the journal Science, completed by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer of Penn State.

While science and technology advances accounted for an estimated 50 percent of U.S. economic growth since World War II, such innovation has fallen off alarmingly in the last decade or longer, according to academic, government and industry sources. At a time when President Obama is heralding "our generation's Sputnik moment," our nation's science education and science literacy as well as societal support for science is threatened.

Acknowledging the diversity of views within both the scientific and religious communities and "encouraging respectful dialogue with insight into different perspectives," as recommended by the director of the American Scientific Affiliation Randy Isaac, throws off a polarized contest in which "there's so much heat that people aren't listening to each other."

That's certainly a good thing. Such conflict is likely to produce few winners. In fact, considering the serious issues facing us at this moment in history, we all stand to lose.

]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.746864 2010-10-02T07:37:40-04:00 2011-05-25T17:55:20-04:00

Alan I. Leshner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-i-leshner/
The exhibit -- including a wealth of physical evidence, from fossilized skulls to stone tools -- reveals without ambiguity how hominids have gradually evolved over millions of years. Of course, this evidence stands in sharp contrast with the creationist view that God created the Earth and all its inhabitants, virtually simultaneously, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.

Yet curator Richard Potts reports, anecdotally, that visitors representing diverse worldviews generally seem to enjoy the exhibit without incident. Docents routinely have mutually respectful conversations with visitors from conservative Christian schools where human evolution is not being taught. Potts points out that many such visitors "can be excited about the discoveries of science." Enthusiasm for science then sets the stage for increasing visitors' level of comfort with science and the nature of scientific evidence.

The Smithsonian exhibit offers important lessons on promoting civil dialogue about scientific issues that impinge on worldviews. The Washington, D.C.-based institution is of course not alone in its quest to reach out to the public in meaningful ways. In New York City, for example, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins at the American Museum of Natural History supports an extensive array of public programs.

But as the Association of Science-Technology Centers gears up for its annual conference in Hawaii next week, October 2-5, it seems a fitting time to review one successful exhibit's strategies for engaging the public with science, particularly related to human origins.

Why Should Scientists Engage with the Public?

First, though, a few paragraphs on why public engagement with science is so essential at this point in American history: After all, creationist views are non-scientific. So some in the scientific community may understandably question why scientists should bother to engage with those who view Genesis as a literal description of creation. This argument suggests that science and religion simply inhabit different domains, and therefore scientists need not concern themselves with anyone who refuses to accept the facts of human evolution.

But ignoring any large component of the U.S. public endangers public support for science and science education. Surveys have shown fairly consistently that "approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable or slightly larger numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time," according to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press.

It's important to remember, as Potts has noted, that many such polls may tend to "emphasize the conflict mode" by asking respondents to choose one absolute statement versus another, whereas public views may often be more nuanced. (In fact, it would be a mistake to assume that most religious believers insist that a literal reading of Genesis is the most correct one. Many believe that the science of evolution explains the "how" of human origins, but not necessarily the "why" or "who.")

Still, many people clearly do question the scientific theory of evolution, and the integrity of K-12 science education has repeatedly come under attack as legislative efforts have been introduced to undermine the teaching of evolution. As explained by the National Center for Science Education, so-called "academic freedom" bills purport to unleash teachers to discuss a "range of scientific views," and/or to encourage students to explore the "strengths and weaknesses" of information about evolution, human origins, and sometimes also global climate change, as in South Dakota. For example, the Louisiana State Education Act now stipulates that teachers may use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." In other words, teachers in Louisiana are encouraged to call the scientific facts of evolution into question.

Such insults to science education are particularly alarming as the U.S. economy remains fragile. As science and technology are increasingly tied to every aspect of modern life, economic progress will be ever more linked to science literacy. An estimated 50 percent of America's economic growth since World War II has been directly tied to advances in science and technology.

Now Back to the Smithsonian Example

It is possible to counter the dangerous polarization within our society related to science-religion issues, as demonstrated by the Smithsonian's David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins. A key to the exhibit's success, Potts says, was the decision to center the exhibit around a question rather than an answer: "What does it mean to be human?" (Similarly, The Exploratorium in San Francisco presents information about human origins by asking, "How do we know what we know?")

This central question has triggered a fascinating range of anatomical, behavioral, spiritual and philosophical responses. One resident of Illinois wrote, for example, that being human means "to walk on two feet, to think in abstract terms, to imagine." Yet the same question prompted another Illinois resident to assert that "we all walk this earth as part of God's creation and part of our Father in Heaven." Still others cited the importance of "learning and discovering many things that we don't know" and the need to "care with tenderness, while not seeking recognition."

Potts and his colleagues also established a Broader Social Impacts Committee. The committee -- encompassing Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Islamic and Jewish perspectives -- is charged with helping the museum promote public dialogue, particularly on issues "at the intersection of scientific findings and religious reflection." For example, Potts says, the committee has helped the museum answer public queries that go beyond science, and they also participate in decisions related to the training of staff and volunteers.

Training for the exhibit's 120 or so volunteers emphasizes "the importance of a respectful and welcoming place where a conversation can take place about the nature of evidence, the process of science and how people relate science to their religious views of the world," Potts explains. "We try to lower the temperature if it ever gets high." Toward that end, town hall-style public discussion groups regularly take place inside the National Museum of Natural History. Special "hot topic" events focus on a science-religion issue on the last Friday of every other month. Interactive resources on the museum's Web site also help visitors feel at ease before they set out to tour the exhibit.

All of these and other tactics have allowed the museum to move "beyond the stereotype that scientists only believe one thing and people with strong religious views can only believe another," Potts says.

The Smithsonian's Hall of Human Origins is only one case study in how science centers are successfully engaging the public on issues at the intersection of science and religion. By the way, I'm delighted that similar public-engagement strategies will be broadly leveraged during the USA Science & Engineering Festival, which will culminate October 23-24 with an expo on the National Mall. Among the many activities at the expo is, for example, an "Evolution Thought Trail" organized by a multidisciplinary coalition of scientific organizations.

The Association of Science-Technology Centers represents 600 members and 444 science centers and museums in 45 countries. The group estimates that 59.4 million visits were made to 342 member institutions in the United States in 2009. Those numbers represent a wealth of opportunities to engage the public with science, thereby easing tensions at the interface of science and religion.

Photo: Richard Potts, director of the Smithsonian's David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the National Museum of Natural History, interacts with a group of young visitors.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.611674 2010-06-15T16:08:00-04:00 2011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00

Alan I. Leshner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-i-leshner/
Of course, some people in sociologist and survey director Elaine Ecklund's study group, as with the general population, described themselves as atheists. Yet even within that category, many also identified themselves as "spiritual." This may explain why, in 275 lengthy follow-up interviews Ecklund found only five scientists who said they actively oppose religion.

Let's hope that Ecklund's unusually comprehensive assessment will help overturn the myth that scientists reject spirituality, or that science and religion are inherently incompatible.

That myth persists among scientists and religious believers alike. In 2009 study by the Pew Research Center, 61% of Americans said that science poses no conflict with their own faith. Nonetheless, 55% of those same respondents said they view religion and science generally as "often in conflict." Evolution, for instance, has divided Americans since 1859, when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species."

There is a better way, which will be demonstrated June 16 when leading scientists and a respected Christian minister engage in a free, public dialogue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

A successful engagement effort does not require a specific outcome. So, civil discourse will be the only objective for the upcoming event, convened by the association's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion program. The association also takes no position on whether religion is good or bad.

Americans have long recognized the power of scientific engagement as a neutral tool for improving foreign relations. Science diplomacy in the 1970s resulted in new cooperation with China and the Soviet Union. Similarly, the current administration launched a major science diplomacy effort, naming science envoys to predominantly Muslim countries in North Africa and Southeast Asia.

But within our own borders, we have tended to overlook another important form of diplomacy that could promote civility by easing political and religious polarization. Increased civil dialogue between scientists and religious leaders suggests a path toward common ground, whether the topic is human origins or climate change.

The need for such diplomacy is clear as U.S. science educators and some in the religious community increasingly find themselves at loggerheads over issues where science can appear to conflict with long-held beliefs. In state after state, those who oppose evolution are introducing legislation to undermine science education. Revised Texas science standards, for example, fail to mention common descent or the age of the universe. These omissions are unfortunate. Understanding evolution is central to science literacy, which in turn affects students' job prospects and American competitiveness.

Climate change skeptics also are challenging science curricula. The Texas standards, similar to a new Louisiana bill and proposals elsewhere, now require students to learn "different views on the existence of global warming." Such attempts to weaken K-12 science education are troubling and perplexing. The science of climate change is clear, and a basic tenet of many religions is the call to be good stewards of the planet.

Various groups are working to mend this rift. For example, the Scientists and Evangelicals Initiative in 2007 sent religious leaders and scientists to Alaska to see receding glaciers and talk with people affected by climate change. Last year, the group also spoke with U.S. policy-makers about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The June 16 event at AAAS will bring David Anderson, founder and lead pastor of Bridgeway Community Church, together with scientists such as William Phillips, a 1997 Nobel Laureate in Physics, astrophysicist Howard Smith of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and paleontologist Rick Potts of the Smithsonian Human Origins Program.

Tensions at the intersection of science and society can promote a pervasive atmosphere of disrespect that damages the fabric of our culture: A recent Zogby International survey revealed that Americans overwhelmingly feel "fed up with incivility." In response, Mark DeMoss, a Republican and evangelical Christian, teamed up last year with Lanny Davis, a liberal Jewish Democrat, to launch the Civility Project, which calls on us to be respectful despite our differences.

We should all follow their example. Both medical and technological advances and high-quality science education improve human welfare and drive economic progress, creating jobs and better lives for our children. Civil dialogue offers a way for the American public and the scientific community to collaborate more productively on behalf of our communities and our nation.]]>