Viewpoint Defending Science Education: Climate as a Second Front for Biologists

Glenn Branch

adly, there was nothing about in attacks on science education in the is famously dire. A rigorous national SArizona’s Senate Bill 1213, intro- United States. The 2012 law enacted study of public high school biology duced in January 2013, that seemed in Tennessee explicitly refers to both; teachers conducted in 2007 revealed unusual. Claiming that “the teaching the 2008 law enacted in Louisiana that a quarter of them were ­presenting of some scientific subjects, includ- ­originally referred to both. In 2013 creationism in the classroom, with ing ­biological evolution, the chemi- alone, of the nine antiscience bills nearly half of that quarter presenting cal origins of life, global warming, introduced in seven states, five of them it as scientifically credible. Less than and human cloning can cause contro- mentioned global warming: Colorado’s a quarter of the teachers respond- versy,” the bill would have permitted House Bill 13-1089, Kansas’s House ing indicated that evolution served as teachers in the state’s public schools Bill 2306, Montana’s House Bill 183, the unifying theme for their biology to discuss “the scientific strengths and Oklahoma’s House Bill 1674, in courses (Berkman et al. 2008). and scientific weaknesses” of such addition to Arizona’s Senate Bill 1213. Although the data are not as rigor- ­theories—and, moreover, would have The statehouse isn’t the only place ous, it seems likely that the situation is prohibited local and state administra- where evolution and climate change comparably dire in the case of climate tors from interfering. education are imperiled. In 2009, science. According to a 2011 National The bill represents the third wave the Texas State Board of Education Earth Science Teachers ­Association of antievolutionist strategy. With the amended the state’s science education survey of 555 K–12 teachers who strategies of banning the teaching of standards in a way that would degrade teach climate change, 36 percent were evolution and of requiring the teach- the treatment of both evolution and ­influenced, directly or indirectly, to ing of biblical creationism, creation climate change in science classrooms teach “both sides” of the issue, with science, or intelligent design no ­longer and in the textbooks used in the state. 5 ­percent required to do so (Johnson feasible, belittling evolution as “con- Moreover, because Texas is the largest and Holzer 2011)—although, as sur- troversial” became the preferred strat- market for textbooks in the United veys of the literature have repeatedly egy within the first decade of the States, publishers typically harmonize shown, the level of consensus among millennium (Branch et al. 2010). In their textbooks with its standards. relevant scientists on climate change is the last decade, over 50 such bills have What happens in Texas doesn’t stay around 97 percent (Cook et al. 2013). appeared in state legislatures around in Texas. the country, passing in Louisiana in The new Next Generation Science A call to arms 2008 and Tennessee in 2012. Standards treat evolution as a core Since even before the Scopes trial in What turned out to be unusual idea of the life sciences and global 1925, biologists have been commend- about the Arizona bill, though, was its climate change as part of a core idea ably resisting the danger posed by primary sponsor’s motivation: What of the Earth and space sciences. As creationism to the integrity of science she regarded as an imbalance in the a result, they are encountering resis- education: testifying in court cases presentation of climate change in tance. The chair of the Kentucky Sen- and before state legislatures, boards the state’s public schools. “I just hap- ate Education Committee complained of education, and local school boards; pen to think that if a person believes that there is “no factual evidence” of writing articles and books expounding that this is not man caused or that speciation—“to suppose that it hap- evolution and debunking creationism; man only contributes so much, then pens is counter to the beliefs of many engaging in outreach through their they should be able to stand before Kentuckians”—and that there are universities and professional societies; their class and discuss it,” she told the “several stubborn facts” contradict- speaking at local events and ranting Arizona Star. Senate Bill 1213 died in ing the consensus on global change on blogs. It is time for biologists to committee, without receiving a hear- reflected in the Next Generation Sci- help resist the danger posed by climate ing, but it was the tip of a menacing ence Standards. change denial, too. iceberg. Even in the absence of organized Scientists are in broad agreement It is now routine for evolution and opposition to the teaching of evolu- about the occurrence, causes, and con- climate change to be targeted together tion, the situation in K–12 classrooms sequences of climate change; climate www.biosciencemag.org September 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 9 • BioScience 717 Viewpoint change deniers are wrong to claim consequences; and insisting that it is When the chair of the Texas State otherwise; and science teachers there- only fair to acknowledge the supposed Board of Education, Don McLeroy, fore have a responsibility to help their scientific controversy: These are the urged his colleagues to degrade the students understand climate change, three pillars of science denial, recogniz- treatment of evolution and climate the evidence for climate change, and able in creationism and climate change change in the state science standards the fact that the scientific community denial alike (Branch et al. 2010). in 2009, his rallying cry, notoriously, agrees that the evidence is convincing. What can biologists do to help? was “Someone has to stand up to these As with evolution, it is important to First, they can prepare, by under- experts!” Not all biologists are experts defend the teaching of climate science standing the basics of climate science. on climate change, just as not all bio­ simply because it is sound science that They don’t have to become climatolo- logists are experts on evolution. But on students have a need—and a right—to gists, but they should appreciate the the teaching of climate change no less understand. ­scientific consensus on the occurrence, than on the teaching of evolution, the But if further reasons seem nec- causes, and consequences of climate biological community’s voice deserves essary, consider that climate change change and the converging lines of to be heard. Experts, in short, have to denial affects the way in which ­bio­logy evidence for it. In addition, they should stand up to the likes of McLeroy. is learned and taught, studied and learn the motivations and arguments applied. After all, climate science is of climate change deniers and should Acknowledgments biologically relevant, playing a role be aware of the likely battlegrounds I thank my colleague Joshua Rosenau in biological disciplines ranging over climate education, from the local for the analysis of the Pew Research from agriculture to zoology. A public classroom to the state legislature. Center data. that lacks climate literacy is a pub- Second, biologists can support lic that lacks biological literacy, and it climate education. Part of doing so References cited is only with the existence of a biologi- involves modeling the behaviors them- Berkman MB, Pacheco JS, Plutzer E. 2008. cally literate public that biology can selves: Biologists at the college and Evolution and creationism in America’s thrive. Climate change denial is a sys- university level can readily emphasize classrooms: A national portrait. PLOS Biology 6 (art. e124). tematic attack on scientific literacy. the relevance of climate science to Branch G, Scott EC, Rosenau J. 2010. The experience of biologists in com- biology in their own teaching. But it Dispatches from the evolution wars: bating creationism will stand them is also important to support climate Shifting tactics and expanding battlefields. Annual Review of Human Genetics and in good stead. True, creationism is ­education in formal and informal ven- Genomics 11: 317–338. driven largely by religious conserva- ues locally and, through their pro- Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, tism, whereas climate change denial fessional societies, nationally. Unlike Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P, Skuce A. 2013. Quantifying the consensus is driven largely by political conser- evolution, climate science is not yet on anthropogenic global warming in the vatism (McCright and Dunlap 2011). comfortably ensconced in the K–12 scientific literature. Environmental Research There is overlap: the National Center educational system; there is a lot of Letters 8 (art. 024024). Johnson R, Holzer M. 2011. Executive for Science Education’s analysis of data work to do before it is. Summary: National Earth Science Teachers from a 2009 survey conducted by the And third, biologists can take action Association K–12 Climate Change Pew Research Center for the People when there is a local controversy over Education Survey. National Earth Sciences Teachers Association. (26 June 2013; www. and the Press reveals a significant asso- climate education, working to resolve nestanet.org/cms/sites/default/files/ ciation (χ2(2) = 54.49, p = 1.5 × 10–12), the controversy cordially but without documents/ExecutiveSummaryClimate with those who reject evolution twice compromising on the quality of sci- ChangeEducationSurveyDecember2011.pdf ) McCright AM, Dunlap RE. 2011. Cool dudes: as likely to reject climate change, as ence education. As with evolution edu- The denial of climate change among well. But there is not identity. cation, science alone isn’t enough to conservative white males in the United Yet the basic rhetorical strategies of resolve such controversies, but by join- States. Global Environmental Change 21: 1163–1172. creationists and climate change deniers ing in broad coalitions to defend the are the same. Contending that the sci- integrity of science education, biolo- ence is shaky, conjectural, teetering gists can help explain the consensus Glenn Branch ([email protected]) is deputy on the verge of collapse, just a theory, of the scientific community on climate director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that defends controversial; alleging that the science change and emphasize the scientific the teaching of evolution and climate science. is driven by radical ideological motiva- methodology on which the consensus tions and leads to undesirable social is founded. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.5

718 BioScience • September 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 9 www.biosciencemag.org