Whitewashing the History of Science in Kansas

Science is becoming so unscientific these days, akin in some minds to ideology—or even religion. Lest you doubt it, consider changes being contemplated by the new “pro science” Kansas Board of Education. In essence, members are planning to do to the less savory history of science, what Stalin once did to photographs that included Trotsky: Airbrushing them out of the picture.

Below is a quote from “History and Nature of Science” for grades 8-12. The part in bold font is what the Board plans to excise from the standards. Wouldn’t want the kids to have a complete view of science as a human endeavor that sometimes gets things terribly wrong, now would we?

Indicator: “Demonstrates an understanding of the history of science.”

Additional Specificity: 1. a. “Modern science has been a successful enterprise that contributes to the dramatic improvements in the human condition. Science has led to significant improvements in physical health and economic growth; however modern science can sometimes be abused by scientists and policymakers, leading to significant negative consequences for society and violations of human dignity (e.g., the eugenics movement in American and Germany; the Tuskegee syphilis experiments; and scientific justifications for eugenics and racism.”

I have asked and been told that the excised aspects are not included elsewhere in the proposed revised curriculum.

I think it can be fairly argued that the old curriculum (again, in bold) dwells too heavily (and specifically) on the negative aspects of the history of science, but only generally on the positive. But a proper corrective is not to delete the negative, but add in specifics of scientific advances to achieve a better balance. Remember, this curriculum is explicitly dedicated (in part) to the history of science. This means students should learn the good and the bad, the sublime and the ugly. Science is a human endeavor, after all, meaning that by definition, it is imperfect. This truth should be reflected in classes about its history.

Galileo is mentioned in the guidelines. And you can bet that his “silencing” will be brought up in the classes—which is appropriate since his trial was part of the history of science. But there is a profound irony here. How is excising the harder facts about the history of science any different than silencing Galileo?

The vote is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon Kansas time. If you wish to opine on the matter in a democratic fashion, contact information can be accessed here. If you decide to exercise your democratic right to opine on either side—please, be polite.

Post Script: I now have the entire proposed science standard alterations, available here. What I posted about is found at page 128.