The damage was done. The BBC now reports that Michael Reiss has resigned as director of education for the Royal Society. To quote the Beeb:
He was criticised by other scientists – though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.
Misquoted by… who? Unspecified media outlets, I suppose. And only now is there reported any real support for the comments made by Reiss, for example from Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London:
“I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.
“This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.
“This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science – something that the Royal Society should applaud.”
For its part, the Royal Society ‘reiterated’ it’s position, stating, “However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.” That sounds suspiciously similar to what Professor Reiss has been saying all along.
What a sorry couple of days for science. What saddens me most is that the scandal-lust of the media seems almost to have been surplus to requirements.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
3 October 2008 at 8:39 pm
The Reverse St Anselm Manoeuvre « That, Which
[...] Thanks to Tony Sidaway for pointing out Nobel Prize-winner Harry Kroto’s comment in the Guardian, in which he takes the opportunity to respond to the swinging pendulum of public opinion. The majority view now appears to be that Michael Reiss was unfairly (and even foolishly) pushed from his post as Director of Science Education at the Royal Society, a view with which Kroto takes issue. (I discussed my views on the original story previously: here, here and here.) [...]