10 The ASCB  Newsletter,  Vol  25,  No  4 Theory vs. Hypothesis Dear  Editor: The Public Policy Briefing article “ASCB Opposes ID in Ohio” [March 2002] begins with the statement: “Intelligent Design, a theory that the world was created or designed by an intelligent higher being, is taking hold in Ohio.” Two sentences later, it is noted that Ohio “failed to properly teach the theory of evolution  to  its  students”. With  each  described  as  a “theory”,  the  article  itself  helps  to  perpetuate pervasive  public  misuse  of  the  term  as  understood  by  scientists.  This  is  responsible  for  some  of  the public confusion over evolution. The  general  non-scientific  public  uses  the  term “theory”  to  mean  an  educated  or  even  unedu- cated guess, whereas for scientists an educated guess is an ”hypothesis”. A scientific “theory” is an hypothesis that has come to be supported by very strong evidence, like the Theory of Relativity. Thus, when  we  biologists  refer  to  the “Theory  of  Evolution  by  Natural  Selection,”  we  are  talking  about something that was originally an educated guess but for which there is now overwhelming substan- tiating hard evidence. But when the public hears us speak of the “Theory of Evolution”, the average person thinks “it’s just a theory”, i.e., a guess. So, for the public, both “ID” and “Evolution” are on equal footing as “theories”. Some have said that a distinction can be made by whether the “T” in “Theory” is capitalized or not, but that is too subtle, and only leads to more confusion. I would like to suggest that  all  ASCB  members  could  contributute  to  better  communication  and  public  understanding  by making  a  clear  distinction  between  the  terms  ”theory”  and “hypothesis”,  both  in  and  out  of  the classroom. In general I think the ASCB Newsletter is very well done, and this is the first time I ever read anything in it that bothered me. Sincerely, Bill Cohen, Hunter College LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Hearing Witness Clarifies Cloning Position Dear  Editor: The  single  sentence  describing  my  participation  [in  Congressional  hearings  on  the  Brownback  bill, March 2002] incorrectly stated that I spoke in support of the Brownback bill. I spoke against experi- mental human cloning—the Brownback bill was mentioned neither in my oral nor written testimony. Indeed, there are aspects of the Brownback bill, such as its proposed criminal  sanctions, with which I have real problems. As an ASCB member for more than 25 years, I view it as primarily a scientific society—not only as  a  professional  interest  group—although  I  know  current  members  of  the  board  and  adminis- trative staff may disagree. My view of the Society is that it should promote discussion on contentious issues within and pertaining to cell biology—not simply present a party line. It would be difficult from the coverage you gave to my views for any readers of the Newsletter to distinguish my position from that  of  the  anti-abortion  Right,  or  to  discern  that  there  is  sentiment  against  experimental  human cloning  from  environmentalist  and  feminist  organizations,  or  from  groups  critical  of  inappropriate applications of biotechnology, such as the Council for Responsible Genetics.  Do all ASCB members except for myself consider that the role of cell biology in the human future is unproblematic? From my discussions with other scientists, I don’t think so. Sincerely, Stuart Newman,  New York Medical College Gifts The ASCB is grateful to the following member who has given a gift to support So- ciety activities: Michael  Watkins MEMBER IN THE NEWS Paul  Berg,  an  ASCB  member  since  1994,  will  be  honored  at  the Exploratorium’s 25th Anniversary Awards Dinner, which recognizes lead- ers in science, technology and education.  Berg is the Chair of the ASCB Public Policy Committe and received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1980.   n