Tilghman blasts intelligent design

President Tilghman spoke out Tuesday against the teaching of intelligent design and said that Darwin's theory of evolution is a fundamental part of the scientific canon at a day-long symposium on the perception of science in the general public.

The event, held at Lewis-Thomas Laboratory and sponsored by the Department of Molecular Biology and the New York Academy of Sciences, was titled "Blurry Vision: Bridging the Gap Between Science and the Public."

Tilghman opened the symposium by addressing the "dramatic need for conversation between science and society" and encouraging young scientists to think about the societal implications of their work.

"It is the best of times and worst of times," she said. "The scientific questions being studied today are really fundamental ... [but] I can see a growing disconnect between what is happening in science and the way scientific information is being challenged and used by the public."

Tilghman cited global climate change, the future of NASA and the debate over the validity of evolution as the three most troublesome issues facing the scientific community today.

"There is a misunderstanding about the likelihood that the globe is in fact warming up due to greenhouse gases," she said. "The evidence is compelling but is being presented in the public domain as uncertain."

She added that NASA's strategy of "abandoning some of the most important telescope and satellite projects in favor of manned flights to Mars" clearly showed the difference between the goals of the scientific community and the administration.

Tilghman said it was "most troubling" and "shocking" that Darwin's theory of natural selection might be presented as "controversial" in schools. She said that intelligent design — which relies on the existence of a higher being to explain biological diversity — is "not a competitor for natural selection," but added that given the current administration's stated views on the matter, she doesn't see a change in policy coming.

Scientists should be proactive in upholding science, Tilghman said. "It's going to be the graduate students who will have to be the spokespersons for science going forward. Scientists have an important and unique responsibility to speak intelligently and clearly about what the science says and what it doesn't say."

In an interview following her remarks, Tilghman elaborated on this responsibility, urging young scientists to "engage in the political process, be prepared to speak out, to write to congressmen and senators and go to senior citizens' homes and high schools and talk about what science is really doing."

Professor of Molecular Biology and Public Affairs Lee Silver reopened the symposium after a lunch break with a presentation about misconstrued science. He faulted both sides of the political spectrum for propagating "molecular theology" about genetically modified foods and cloning, among other things.

Panel discussions followed on topics including homosexuality, intelligent design and how the government and the media shape the perception of scientists.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"For the healthiest relationship between scientists and the public, a discussion of the perception of scientists is necessary," graduate student Tim Weil said, opening the first afternoon panel.

Panel members decried the politicization of science. "In the situation we're in right now, science is in the service of power. People with M.D. and Ph.D. at the ends of their names — many of them are not scientists — are selected to give advice based on ideological agreement with the administration," journalist Esther Kaplan said.

Rutgers history professor David Greenberg said he mostly agreed, but added a cautionary note. "There remains a strong regard for scientists in the general public," he said. "Being a scientist does a carry a certain cultural authority with 100 years of regard behind it, as much as this countercurrent has existed."

The following panel discussed the disconnect between science and the media. Panel members, most of them journalists working for scientific publications, stressed that just as journalists don't always understand science, scientists don't always understand journalism.

The co-chairs of the conference's organizing committee, graduate students Weil and Jodi Schottenfeld, came up with the idea after a Wilson School conference on stem cells in April.

"The perception of science is in such a negative light right now — just look at politics," Weil said.

Greenberg said the topic was indeed timely and necessary. "One reason I was inclined to participate [in this symposium] is that it seems like an urgent subject these days," he said. "Science has been politicized and there's been an exploitation of the public's lack of understanding of science."

Though most of the attendees were faculty and graduate students, the conference also attracted roughly 10 students from Nutley High School in Nutley, N.J., who attended the symposium with physics and chemistry teacher Christine Polk.

"Science literacy is important. Instead of just learning in class, I thought of bringing [students] to see scientists in public," Polk said.

Her students liked what they heard.

"It was enjoyable because it took subject matter we learned in class and brought it into real-world situations," senior Charles Jones said. "I found it all very interesting, and learned how to look at results in a laboratory setting."