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