Rissing: Jerry Cirino's ‘both sides' mandate would make liars out of Ohio's professors

Steve Rissing is professor emeritus in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at Ohio State University. bioOH@medium.com. He plans to post columns to his blog.

Citizens in our democratic society need scientific perspectives now more than ever, especially in this age of disinformation and misinformation. Many people no longer believe formerly trusted institutions.

When Ohio elected policymakers attempt to control how trained, licensed, professionals instruct their students, we have a problem.

Our view: Anti-American bills will enslave minds of Ohio students

Let me provide an example of the power of scientific norms, consequences of failures to adhere to them, how they can improve our lives, and dangers of current efforts to curb teaching them.

Twenty-three years ago, my first "Biology and Society" column appeared in the Dispatch.  I provided an easy recipe for a child to extract DNA from an onion.  It used dish detergent, rubbing alcohol, salt, meat tenderizer, and cheesecloth.  S/he could see threads of DNA — the stuff of genes — floating in their solution.

Discovered the year after I was born, DNA is now, well, in our DNA.  It wasn’t always that way.

It took over 50 years of often biased science to discover DNA.

Steve Rissing: DeWine's greenwashing of natural gas as a 'green energy' source

More: Curbing the spread of COVID requires an understanding of evolution

By1902, biologists realized that the heritable factors, later called genes, Gregor Mendel described four decades earlier were located on the chromosomes of plants and animals.

Biologists knew chromosomes consisted of proteins and a recently discovered, phosphorous-rich molecule, nuclein.

Easy science project:  Hypothesis 1: Genes consist of proteins; Hypothesis 2:  Genes consist of nuclein. It took 50 years to realize genes consist of DNA, a nuclein.

Proteins consist of 22 building blocks, amino acids. DNA consists of just four building blocks, nucleic acids. Many biologists reasoned that “simple” DNA didn’t possess enough “molecular intelligence” to code for complex organisms like us.  A 22-letter code just seemed better than a four-letter one.

IBM had just demonstrated that a two-letter code of ones and zeros store a huge amount of information. Gene-hunting biologists either didn’t know or understand the significance of that insight to their work.

Every high school and college science text describes the value of scientific objectivity. Make an observation (genes are on chromosomes), generate alternative hypotheses (genes are proteins or DNA), design effective experiments, gather data, and reject hypotheses your data do not support.

That didn’t happen until 50 years later when a series of powerful experiments culminated in Watson’s and Crick’s exquisite explanation of the structure of DNA relying on the unsung research of Rosalind Franklin.

Where would our genetic technology be now if biology hadn’t spun its wheels for 50 years? The inherent bias that complicated organisms require complicated genetic systems distracted biologists for many years.

I have never seen a high school or college biology text explain the role that bias played in delaying discovery of the simple structure but powerful function of DNA.

When I taught that history, I presented both sides but hardly objectively. I revealed my pro-DNA bias and my rejection of the pro-protein position.

In a technical sense I might have violated Senate Bill 83 by advocating for and even testing students about my pro-DNA position.

The DNA vs protein basis of genes is no longer scientifically controversial. It probably never was “politically controversial” in terms of Senate Bill 83.  But what if it was? How long would I have to teach ‘both sides’ without reveling my ‘woke’ bias for DNA?

Perhaps it once was, but climate change and the policies needed to address it are no longer scientifically controversial either, even if they are politically controversial for Ohio legislators supported by fossil fuel interests.

Sen. Jerry Cirino, sponsor of SB 83, says his bill doesn’t ban teaching climate change classes, like the one colleagues and I started at OSU.  He just wants us to present ‘both sides.' I can’t do that. I can’t lie to my students or people who read my column.

Steve Rissing is professor emeritus in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at Ohio State University. bioOH@medium.com. He plans to post columns to his blog.

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio senator's ‘both sides' mandate would make professors lie| Opinion