REMARKS TO KANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

February 08, 2000; Topeka, Kansas

Rev. Dr. David A. Johnson, Minister

Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church, Overland Park KS 66212

My name is David Johnson. For 14 years I have served as Minister of a church in Overland Park. Before entering full-time ministry I was a research scientist. My specialties are marine geology and oceanography. I am also the father of two teenagers enrolled in Shawnee Mission School District.

I speak today on behalf of accountability: In matters of faith; matters of science; and matters of quality education. Specifically I would affirm the decision of this Board, at its January meeting, to submit the proposed Science Standards for External Peer Review.

Some background:

In my research I sought to understand how the earth, and life on earth, came to be. Toward this end I wrote over 70 proposals, seeking support from the U.S. Navy; the National Science Foundation; and industry. Each proposal was examined by anywhere from 3 to 6 reviewers who evaluated the merits of my proposal and my qualifications.

My research led to 45 published papers, in peer-reviewed books and journals. Once again, qualified reviewers examined the integrity of my work.

I've also served as a Program Director at the National Science Foundation. Each year I read over a hundred research proposals (submitted to the Marine Geology and Geophysics Program), and chose qualified reviewers for each. My thoroughness in selecting peer reviewers was a crucial step. But there was more: To insure that my selection of reviewers was appropriate, an independent panel of experts met 3 times a year with NSF staff. Their job was to review the reviewers, as well as my recommendations on funding or declining each proposal. Then the Panel‚s work was reviewed at higher levels of the Foundation.

My point is simple: External peer review is the single most important process in insuring the integrity of science. Peer review gives confidence to scientists AND to the public that research funds are wisely allocated, and that published interpretations hold up under scrutiny.

Peer review, done properly, takes time: Often it‚s two years between proposal preparation and the award of grants. It can be five years or more between the start of a project and publication. Such thoroughness is crucial. Question: In this electronic age, as the Internet is glutted with un-reviewed trivia which can camouflage the substantive, are we training our children, and ourselves, to discern what has met rigorous standards of review? Are we willing to submit our own interim "truths" to the respectful, conscientious evaluation of our peers?

In summary I thank the Board for having re-affirmed external peer review. It is the most crucial component in sustaining high-quality science, and also high-quality SCIENCE STANDARDS.

Finally, I offer this hope, as the parent of two teenagers who will graduate from Shawnee Mission South, a school with well-deserved awards for excellence. I hope that this Board will re-affirm peer review as the essential component of excellence: Not only for Science Education Standards, but for every set of Education Standards. If through your actions you demonstrate such thoroughness, I know that our children will be able to look back on their years of education in Kansas, not with embarrassment, but with genuine pride.