The current issue of New Scientist [12th July 2008] carries an editorial entitled “A lesson in cynicism”. This relates to the law recently passed by the state of Louisiana. The editorial suggests:

Now, according to supporters of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which became a state law two weeks ago, academic freedom is what elementary and secondary school teachers and school board officials need in order to pursue an "open discussion of scientific theories" with their students. Not surprisingly, given the law's originators on the religious right ("Evolution, global warming and cloning: up for grabs in Louisiana"), it places evolution at the top of the list of theories now open for discussion. It then makes provision for teachers to introduce books and other materials from outside the standard curriculum to help students "critique" the science they are taught.

In addition, the magazine includes a special report entitled “Class Conflict”  written by Amanda Gefter which describes the campaign led by Barbara Forrest [Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University] that attempted to prevent the bill from becoming law. For the sake of clarity and completeness, we include the actual text from the Louisiana legislation:

AN ACT

To enact R.S. 17:285.1, relative to curriculum and instruction; to provide relative to the teaching of scientific subjects in public elementary and secondary schools; to promote students' critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories; to provide relative to support and guidance for teachers; to provide relative to textbooks and instructional materials; to provide for rules and regulations; to provide for effectiveness; and to provide for related matters.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

Section 1 R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:

285.1 Science education; development of critical thinking skills

A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Science Education Act."

B. (1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, but not limited to evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

(2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyse, critique and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008/2009 school year.

Accordingly, the law allows for the promotion of “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including evolution, but not limited to evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”  Moreover, teachers are required to teach first from the standard textbooks and not to promote any religious doctrine. However, the New Scientist editorial continues:

Even for the broad concept of academic freedom this is a mighty stretch, and a corrosively cynical one. It takes a cherished feature of science - the unrestricted nature of rational inquiry - and turns it on its head to promote a non-rational agenda.

It is interesting to consider some of the definitions of cynicism that are available on the web. One definition is as follows: “An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals”. We wonder if the New Scientist would want to include the state of Louisiana here as an example of a governmental scandal. The editorial concludes:

This time engagement is essential. The fact that academic freedom bills were introduced in six US states this year, and that the one in Louisiana received nearly unanimous support, demonstrates the gulf that exists between how scientists perceive reality and how some politicians do. That's why it is not enough for scientists to assert that evolution is correct or global warming is real: scientists and educators need to help people understand what constitutes scientific thinking.

One question - who is actually being cynical here?