Johnny may not be able to read but he will know about junk science. The problem is he won't know the junk he learned is not science. This year, budding scientists in a suburban Philadelphia school district will practice suing developers and learning that naturally occurring nitrogen is good but man-made nitrogen is bad.
This past spring I reviewed a sixth grade textbook proposed for the 1996-1997 school year. It was part of a Scott Foresman science curriculum for elementary grades advertised as hands-on where, "Students will be engaged in doing science--not reading about science."
After two hours of reading I was stunned by the misinformation, political activism and distortions camouflaged as science. Not only was junk science hailed throughout the book but the time wasted on biased learning would not be spent on acquiring the fundamental skills and knowledge necessary for science literacy.
Typifying the theme of the book was a half-page picture of children in a Sixties style protest march carrying a banner that read, "Don't vandalize The Earth." The caption read, "Young People have opinions, too."
Young people do have opinions, but unless they are based on factual information, sound logic, and fundamental principles they are worthless. Other examples drip through the Scott Foresman text:
Within an eye-catching "High-Tech, Low -Tech" chapter the concept of pH is introduced with the implication that coal-burning power plants are the sole cause of acid rain, contribute to global warming and are just plain bad. Unfortunately for the children, this is not the whole story and a balanced approach would include natural contributions from sulfur emitting volcanoes (estimated by Stoibes and Jepson in 1973 at 100 million tons/day), lightening, and burning of fossil fuels. Nowhere is it mentioned that rain is naturally acidic.
Contacting one of the consultants listed in the textbook, Dr. Roger Pielke - Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, I asked if he would introduce the concept of acid rain to 11-year-olds in this way. He said that unfortunately content consultants only review small sections of the textbook. "I would include more significant contributors to acid rain such as cars and volcanoes," he added.
Concerned that a balanced presentation would not be found in other texts, I also reviewed the runner-up material. In the Silver Burdett Ginn text the issue of acid rain and global warming was introduced in a chapter on volcanoes -- specifically the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. In less than 300 words a simple explanation tied natural to manmade influences on environmental changes. Obviously the Ginn authors believe sixth graders capable of understanding a balanced approach.
In the Foresman introduction to wetlands, students are given the impossibly flawed task to balance 11 nails on one large nail. This hands-on exercise supposedly represents the difficulty in balancing an ecosystem. The stated conclusion is that ecosystems cannot be balanced when humans intervene. Missing from the text is the fact that all systems constantly change and only by human intervention is a system kept static.
A table called "Disappearing Wetlands" depicts the terrible loss of wetland acreage in the United States. There was no mention that the definition of a wetland was changed in the late 1980s. The new definition included known areas like the Everglades and the Okeefenokee swamp but went beyond reasonableness to add any area where there is even a hint of water 18 inches below the ground for seven consecutive days of the growing season. This politically driven decision by the head of the EPA increased the amount of wetlands in the Unitec States to more than 80 million acres but more importantly redefined the amount of lost wetlands to more than 100 million acres.
Several pages are spent describing Environmental Impact Statements. The students aren't told that an EIS is not a scientific but a regulatory document which can be twisted to produce a desired outcome or perpetually challenged to prevent any undesirable activity.
There are repeated references to environmental laws; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Clean Air Act of 1977, and the successful work of the EPA. The terrible effects of overpopulation and biological disasters like the death of a rain forest are also included. No references to any other scientific research group or government agency like NASA, NOAA, or DOE are provided.
The terrible impact of DDT is described at length and why it was outlawed by the EPA. No mention is made that Dr. Paul Muller received the Nobel Prize for Medicine for patenting the pesticide in 1939. Or thanks to DDT World War II was the first time when no soldier died of typhus fever. In 1970, the expectation was that malaria would be eradicated because of DDT. There are now over eight million deaths each year attributed to malaria. The problem with DDT was not its use but overuse.
To ensure students learned their junk science well, an exercise is provided at the end of the book to script a mock trial where a developer is sued for threatening an animal or plant species. Students must write acting roles for the prosecuting attorney, judge, witnesses, jury and defendant.
Unfortunately for my second grade son, the science program was approved by a 5 to 4 vote. The future is our children, so prepare for a new generation of junk science enthusiasts.
Stacy Walbridge is a member of the Neshaminy School Board in southeastern Pennsylvania, and a registered professional engineer.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.