ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Coming late to this wonderful discussion, because I only read the nightly
digest:

Which is *more* neutral: offering information on the science of global
warming, or not offering it?  Where in the model of free choice learning
does it say we get to restrict the science content we offer to patrons
because it risks our financial future, ESPECIALLY WHEN *the planet's future*
depends on more people getting that science content?  To paraphrase
something a conference speaker said:  if car makers sold machines that kill
people, they'd go out of business.  Cars do kill people, but they also make
millions of lives easier/better.  (And yes, they also contribute to global
warming.)  But can we just look at the financial risks of opportunities like
this (focusing on the negative), when the educational opportunities are
equally if not more important?  (And potentially lucrative - who gets the
licensing in this deal?)

There's an ongoing debate here about how much of a role we have in science
education.  My favorite response in the debate so far has been, "if not us,
who?"  NSTA is obviously backing away from their role as formal educators,
hypocritically accepting some industry promotional materials over others.
Here's an opportunity for informal science education to step up to the
challenge, to do the right thing.  I like to think that if only one
informed, inspired visitor of ours eventually solves the problem of cold
fusion, or cures cancer, or discovers life on another planet, we'll have
made our mark on history.  Thus, the more visitors we inform and inspire,
the better our chances are.

...On the other hand, who wants to be the first 501c3 martyr, the Scopes of
ASTC?  Does this have the ring of the evo/crea debate?  Is the real
"inconvenient truth" the danger that we're getting sucked into an
apples/oranges thing again?  Global warming is science; it is fact.  If
politics is on the other side of the argument, is it fair to put them on the
same scale?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a political film, in that a Democrat narrates it.
Isn't it a sad commentary on the state of politics in this country that a
"saving the planet and life on it" message is tarred with the partisan
brush?  Isn't politics, ideally, supposed to be about the betterment of life
for the citizenry?  Gore says that global warming transcends politics, but
that's because politics is mostly about name-calling and image manipulation.
Education, and through it progress, should appeal to the better angels of
all our natures.

Gore may run in 2008, he may not.  On the other hand, rising CO2 levels will
swamp us if awareness of the problem is not raised.  We have the opportunity
to help raise awareness, to teach some important (even life-saving) science.
So let's.  "Harry Potter" movies don't have nearly that power.

Yours in fellow toil,
N


Nik Charov
Grants Manager
New York Hall of Science
47-01 111th St.
Queens, NY 11368
P: (718) 699-0005 ext. 380
F: (718) 699-1341
E: [log in to unmask]

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]