Texas biology professors voice support for evolution education

Dec. 11, 2007, 2:31AM
Texas biology professors voice support for evolution education

© 2007 The Associated Press

AUSTIN — Biology professors from across Texas stressed the importance of educating students about evolution in a letter to the state education commissioner and said Texas Education Agency employees shouldn't be required to stay neutral on the subject.

More than 100 faculty members from the universities of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas State, North Texas, Houston, Rice and Baylor signed the letter. It was sent Monday to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott.

"I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I and many others simply feel that good evolution education is key to understanding biology as a whole," said Daniel Bolnick of the University of Texas, who started collecting signatures last week.

The professors sent the letter in response to the departure of Chris Comer, who said evolution politics were behind her forced resignation last month as the state's director of science curriculum.

Comer said she came under pressure after forwarding an e-mail that her superiors felt made the agency appear to be biased against the instruction of intelligent design. Intelligent design holds that the universe's order and complexity is so great science alone cannot explain it.

UT integrative biology professor David Hillis said the Comer's ouster shows the country is slipping into "scientific illiteracy."

"It is extraordinarily unfortunate and inappropriate that religious views are dictating hiring and firing decisions at the Texas Education Agency," he said. "This is an enormous black eye in terms of our competitiveness and ability to attract researchers and technologies."

Education officials say Comer's resignation came after repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination. Scott and other officials declined to comment specifically, because they feared being sued.

"I am really frustrated with the issue, knowing the truth and not being able to talk about it," Scott said.

According to TEA documents, Comer's superiors recommended she be terminated because of comments she made about the agency's leadership and her failure to get approval for making presentations outside the agency.

The documents show that Lizzette Reynolds, the agency's senior adviser on statewide initiatives, notified Comer's superiors after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation by an author who argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools

"This is something that the State Board, the Gov.'s Office and members of the Legislature would be extremely upset to see because it assumes this is a subject that the agency supports," Reynolds said in the e-mail to Comer's supervisors.

Comer said her only recent reprimand was in February after she attended a meeting of science educators without getting prior approval.

"Did I question them when they said things that I thought were wrong? Yes, I did that," Comer said Monday. "I did speak up for myself. I was not a shrinking violet. But then, as the director of science, I thought it was important to hear my expert opinions of what is going on."

Next year, the State Board of Education begins a review of the state science curriculum, which will set standards for classroom instruction and textbook selection.

___

Information from: Austin American-Statesman, http://www.statesman.com

Official Leaves Post as Texas Prepares to Debate Science Education Standards

Erich Schlegel for The New York Times
Christine Comer, the former director of science in Texas.

I guess there is a thought police.... -Angela

December 3, 2007
Official Leaves Post as Texas Prepares to Debate Science Education Standards

By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
HOUSTON, Dec. 2 — After 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer said she did not think she had to remain “neutral” about teaching the theory of evolution.

“It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law,” said Ms. Comer, citing the state’s science curriculum.

But now Ms. Comer, 56, of Austin, is out of a job, after forwarding an e-mail message on a talk about evolution and creationism — “a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” according to a dismissal letter last month that accused her of various instances of “misconduct and insubordination” and of siding against creationism and the doctrine that life is the product of “intelligent design.”

Her departure, which has stirred dismay among science professionals since it became public last week, is a prelude to an expected battle early next year over rewriting the state’s science education standards, which include the teaching of evolution.

Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the state’s education agency in Austin, said Ms. Comer “resigned. She wasn’t fired.”

“Our job,” Ms. Ratcliffe added, “is to enact laws and regulations that are passed by the Legislature or the State Board of Education and not to inject personal opinions and beliefs.”

Ms. Comer disputed that characterization in a series of interviews, her first extensive comments. She acknowledged forwarding to a local online community an e-mail message from the National Center for Science Education, a pro-evolution group, about a talk in Austin on Nov. 2 by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, a co-author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” and an expert witness in the landmark 2005 case that ruled against the teaching of intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., schools.

“I don’t see how I took a position by F.Y.I.-ing on a lecture like I F.Y.I. on global warming or stem-cell research,” Ms. Comer said. “I send around all kinds of stuff, and I’m not accused of endorsing it.” But she said that as a career science educator, “I’m for good science,” and that when it came to teaching evolution, “I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination where I stand.”

Ms. Comer said state education officials seemed uneasy lately over the required evolution curriculum. It had always been part of her job to answer letter-writers inquiring about evolution instruction, she said, and she always replied that the State Board of Education supported the teaching of evolution in Texas schools.

But several months ago, in response to an inquiry letter, Ms. Comer said she was instructed to strike her usual statement about the board’s support for teaching evolution and to quote instead the exact language of the high school biology standards as formulated for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills test.

“The student knows the theory of biological evolution,” the standards read, and is expected to “identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities and embryology,” as well as to “illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior and extinction.”

The standards, adopted in 1998, are due for a 10-year review and possible revision after the 15-member elected State Board of Education meets in February, with particular ramifications for the multibillion-dollar textbook industry. The chairman of the panel, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist and Sunday School teacher at Grace Bible Church in College Station, has lectured favorably in the past about intelligent design.

Ms. Ratcliffe, of the Texas Education Agency, said Dr. McLeroy played no part in Ms. Comer’s departure.

Ms. Comer said that barely an hour after forwarding the e-mail message about Dr. Forrest’s talk, she was called in and informed that Lizzette Reynolds, deputy commissioner for statewide policy and programs, had seen a copy and complained, calling it “an offense that calls for termination.” Ms. Comer said she had no idea how Ms. Reynolds, a former federal education official who served as an adviser to George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas, had seen the message so quickly, and remembered thinking, “What is this, the thought police or what?”

Under pressure, Ms. Comer said, she sent out a retraction, advising recipients to disregard the message.

But Ms. Comer, the divorced mother of a grown son and daughter and the supporter of an ailing father, was still forced out of the $60,000-a-year job, she said, submitting her resignation on Nov. 7. She and the agency said nothing about her departure until The Austin American-Statesman obtained a copy of the “proposed disciplinary action” and her resignation letter.

Ms. Comer said that Tom Shindell, director for organizational development, had told her to resign or be terminated for a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and other reported transgressions.

“Tom,” Ms. Comer said she asked, “am I getting fired over evolution?”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution

This research on cooperation is fascinating. It seems to get around the question of whether we are "essentially" cooperative or competitive. Answer? It depends. It depends on whether the cost-benefit ratio of entering into a cooperative relationship is greater or lesser than having access to support (or neighbors) according to this formula: B/C>K ( where K=neighbors)

Preceding reputation, however, makes a difference, too. Read on.

-Angela

New York Times
In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution
By CARL ZIMMER
Published: July 31, 2007

When Martin Nowak was in high school, his parents thought he would be
a nice boy and become a doctor. But when he left for the University of
Vienna, he abandoned medicine for something called biochemistry. As
far as his parents could tell, it had something to do with yeast and
fermenting. They became a little worried. When their son entered
graduate school, they became even more worried. He announced that he
was now studying games.

Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor, is studying cooperation.

In the end, Dr. Nowak turned out all right. He is now the director of
the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard. The games were
actually versatile mathematical models that Dr. Nowak could use to
make important discoveries in fields as varied as economics and cancer
biology.

"Martin has a passion for taking informal ideas that people like me
find theoretically important and framing them as mathematical models,"
said Steven Pinker, a Harvard linguist who is collaborating with Dr.
Nowak to study the evolution of language. "He allows our intuitions
about what leads to what to be put to a test."

On the surface, Dr. Nowak's many projects may seem randomly scattered
across the sciences. But there is an underlying theme to his work. He
wants to understand one of the most puzzling yet fundamental features
of life: cooperation.

When biologists speak of cooperation, they speak more broadly than the
rest of us. Cooperation is what happens when someone or something gets
a benefit because someone or something else pays a cost. The benefit
can take many forms, like money or reproductive success. A friend
takes off work to pick you up from the hospital. A sterile worker bee
tends to eggs in a hive. Even the cells in the human body cooperate.
Rather than reproducing as fast as it can, each cell respects the
needs of the body, helping to form the heart, the lungs or other vital
organs. Even the genes in a genome cooperate, to bring an organism to life.

In recent papers, Dr. Nowak has argued that cooperation is one of the
three basic principles of evolution. The other two are mutation and
selection. On their own, mutation and selection can transform a
species, giving rise to new traits like limbs and eyes. But
cooperation is essential for life to evolve to a new level of
organization. Single-celled protozoa had to cooperate to give rise to
the first multicellular animals. Humans had to cooperate for complex
societies to emerge.

"We see this principle everywhere in evolution where interesting
things are happening," Dr. Nowak said.

While cooperation may be central to evolution, however, it poses
questions that are not easy to answer. How can competing individuals
start to cooperate for the greater good? And how do they continue to
cooperate in the face of exploitation? To answer these questions, Dr.
Nowak plays games.

His games are the intellectual descendants of a puzzle known as the
Prisoner's Dilemma. Imagine two prisoners are separately offered the
same deal: if one of them testifies and the other doesn't talk, the
talker will go free and the holdout will go to jail for 10 years. If
both refuse to talk, the prosecutor will only be able to put them in
jail for six months. If each prisoner rats out the other, they will
both get five-year sentences. Not knowing what the other prisoner will
do, how should each one act?

The way the Prisoner's Dilemma pits cooperation against defection
distills an important feature of evolution. In any encounter between
two members of the same species, each one may cooperate or defect.
Certain species of bacteria, for example, spray out enzymes that break
down food, which all the bacteria can then suck up. It costs energy to
make these enzymes. If one of the microbes stops cooperating and does
not make the enzymes, it can still enjoy the meal. It can gain a
potential reproductive edge over bacteria that cooperate.

The Prisoner's Dilemma may be abstract, but that's why Dr. Nowak likes
it. It helps him understand fundamental rules of evolution, just as
Isaac Newton discovered that objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

"If you were obsessed with friction, you would have never discovered
this law," Dr. Nowak said. "In the same sense, I try to get rid of
what is inessential to find the essential. Truth is simple."

Dr. Nowak found his first clues to the origin of cooperation in
graduate school, collaborating with his Ph.D. adviser, Karl Sigmund.
They built a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma that captured more of
the essence of how organisms behave and evolve.

In their game, an entire population of players enters a round-robin
competition. The players are paired up randomly, and each one chooses
whether to cooperate or defect. To make a choice, they can recall
their past experiences with other individual players. Some players
might use a strategy in which they had a 90-percent chance of
cooperating with a player with whom they have cooperated in the past.

The players get rewarded based on their choices. The most successful
players get to reproduce. Each new player had a small chance of
randomly mutating its strategy. If that strategy turned out to be more
successful, it could dominate the population, wiping out its ancestors.

Dr. Nowak and Dr. Sigmund observed this tournament through millions of
rounds. Often the winners used a strategy that Dr. Nowak called,
"win-stay, lose-shift." If they did well in the previous round, they
did the same thing again. If they did not do so well, they shifted.
Under some conditions, this strategy caused cooperation to become
common among the players, despite the short-term payoff of defecting.

In order to study this new version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, Dr.
Nowak had to develop new mathematical tools. It turned out that these
tools also proved useful for studying cancer. Cancer and the
Prisoner's Dilemma may seem like apples and oranges, but Dr. Nowak
sees an intimate connection between the two. "Cancer is a breakdown of
cooperation," he said.

Mutations sometimes arise in cells that cause them to replicate
quickly, ignoring signals to stop. Some of their descendants acquire
new mutations, allowing them to become even more successful as cancer
cells. They evolve, in other words, into more successful defectors.
"Cancer is an evolution you don't want," Dr. Nowak said.

To study cancer, however, Dr. Nowak had to give his models some
structure. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, the players usually just bump
into each other randomly. In the human body, on the other hand, cells
only interact with cells in their neighborhood.

A striking example of these neighborhoods can be found in the
intestines, where the lining is organized into millions of tiny
pockets. A single stem cell at the bottom of a pocket divides, and its
daughter cells are pushed up the pocket walls. The cells that reach
the top get stripped away.

Dr. Nowak adapted a branch of mathematics known as graph theory, which
makes it possible to study networks, to analyze how cancer arises in
these local neighborhoods. "Our tissue is actually organized to delay
the onset of cancer," he said.

Pockets of intestinal cells, for example, can only hold a few cell
generations. That lowers the chances that any one will turn cancerous.
All the cells in each pocket are descended from a single stem cell, so
that there's no competition between lineages to take over the pocket.

As Dr. Nowak developed this neighborhood model, he realized it would
help him study human cooperation. "The reality is that I'm much more
likely to interact with my friends, and they're much more likely to
interact with their friends," Dr. Nowak said. "So it's more like a network."

Dr. Nowak and his colleagues found that when they put players into a
network, the Prisoner's Dilemma played out differently. Tight clusters
of cooperators emerge, and defectors elsewhere in the network are not
able to undermine their altruism. "Even if outside our network there
are cheaters, we still help each other a lot," Dr. Nowak said. That is
not to say that cooperation always emerges. Dr. Nowak identified the
conditions when it can arise with a simple equation: B/C>K. That is,
cooperation will emerge if the benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio of
cooperation is greater than the average number of neighbors (K).

"It's the simplest possible thing you could have expected, and it's
completely amazing," he said.

Another boost for cooperation comes from reputations. When we decide
whether to cooperate, we don't just rely on our past experiences with
that particular person. People can gain reputations that precede them.
Dr. Nowak and his colleagues pioneered a version of the Prisoner's
Dilemma in which players acquire reputations. They found that if
reputations spread quickly enough, they could increase the chances of
cooperation taking hold. Players were less likely to be fooled by
defectors and more likely to benefit from cooperation.

In experiments conducted by other scientists with people and animals,
Dr. Nowak's mathematical models seem to fit. Reputation has a powerful
effect on how people play games. People who gain a reputation for not
cooperating tend to be shunned or punished by other players.
Cooperative players get rewarded.

"You help because you know it gives you a reputation of a helpful
person, who will be helped," Dr. Nowak said. "You also look at others
and help them according to whether they have helped."

The subject of human cooperation is important not just to mathematical
biologists like Dr. Nowak, but to many people involved in the current
debate over religion and science. Some claim that it is unlikely that
evolution could have produced humans' sense of morality, the altruism
of heroes and saints. "Selfless altruism presents a major challenge
for the evolutionist," Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the
National Human Genome Research Institute, wrote in his 2006 book, "The
Language of God."

Dr. Nowak believes evolutionary biologists should study average
behavior rather than a few extreme cases of altruism. "Saintly
behavior is unfortunately not the norm," Dr. Nowak said. "The current
theory can certainly explain a population where some people act
extremely altruistically." That does not make Dr. Nowak an atheist,
however. "Evolution describes the fundamental laws of nature according
to which God chose to unfold life," he declared in March in a lecture
titled "Evolution and Christianity" at the Harvard Divinity School.
Dr. Nowak is collaborating with theologians there on a project called
"The Evolution and Theology of Cooperation," to help theologians
address evolutionary biology in their own work.

Dr. Nowak sometimes finds his scientific colleagues astonished when he
defends religion. But he believes the astonishment comes from a
misunderstanding of the roles of science and religion. "Like
mathematics, many theological statements do not need scientific
confirmation. Once you have the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, it's
not like we have to wait for the scientists to tell us if it's right.
This is it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/science/31prof.html?ref=science&page
wanted=all