By Gail Becker, John F. Haught, Stephen Low and Dennis Wint

This article was published in Museum News July/August 2005.

The teaching of creationism in America’s public schools, demanded by some religious groups as a companion to the teaching of evolution, has sparked a new national debate about the roles of religion and science. Not surprisingly, museums, especially science centers, now find themselves in the middle of the debate, willingly or not.

Questioning the primacy and even the validity of Darwin’s long accepted theory about the origins of the human species has become almost commonplace; a generation ago it was unthinkable. Today at least 19 states are contemplating a challenge to the teaching of evolution in public schools, prompting the American Association for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Sciences, and National Science Teachers Association to issue statements in support of Darwin’s theory. Still national polls reveal that 45 to 55 percent of Americans believe in a literal Biblical explanation of how we and our world came to be. The recent theory of “intelligent design” posits that the human species is so vastly and brilliantly complex that the hand of an intelligent creator—that is, God—is a more likely explanation than natural selection for what we are today. If all this is a sign of the rising tide of religious belief—even, some would claim, religious fundamentalism—in American life, what are the implications for museums?

A recent controversy surrounding one IMAX film, Volcanoes of the Deep Sea, may give an indication. Originally released in 2003 and meant largely for the science-center and natural-history museum markets, Volcanoes explores the phenomenon of undersea thermal vents. The film was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, backed by the research and scholarship of scientists, and subject to scientific review. The script describes the Big Bang (“Five billion years ago, a giant star, a hundred times greater than our sun, blew itself into a super nova . . .”) and later makes this statement regarding the thermal vents: “There is a good chance that this is where life began on earth…”.

Objections to the film’s content, some from audience focus groups, were first raised more than a year after the film’s release. One reported charge was that the film presented “the theory of evolution . . . as fact.” One science center in Texas rejected the film, then reversed itself after negative public and press reaction. Another in North Carolina did the same. Both museums stated that they based their original reaction on the film’s lack of audience appeal, not because of objections to its statements on evolution. However, a commercial IMAX theater in South Carolina did reject the film for fear of offending its audience. As the theater’s director explained to the New York Times, “We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public.” The film’s director has estimated that 20 percent of science-focused IMAX theaters, mostly in the South, have declined to show Volcanoes because of the controversy.

Museum News turned to four individuals—two museum professionals, the director of Volcanoes, and a theologian—to get their views on the current debate and its implications both for museums and society at large. The questions raised are larger than those surrounding a single IMAX film. They include this: To what degree can science and religion coexist in the same public institution, if at all?

Dennis Wint
Dennis M. Wint has been president and CEO of the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, since 1995. Previously, he served as president of the St. Louis Science Center, director of the Cranbrook Institute of Science in Michigan, and vice president of Philadelphia’s Academy of Natural Sciences. Wint is a past president (1995-97) of the Association of Science-Technology Centers.

Stephen Low
Stephen Low began working in Canada’s film business in the early 1970s, serving on the crew of commercial movies. Toward the end of the decade, Low branched out on his own into documentary films and made the leap into large-format IMAX films in the early 1980s. Low has directed several award-winning large-format films, including The Last Buffalo (1990), Beavers (1997), and Volcanoes of the Deep Sea (2003).

John F. Haught
John F. Haught is Thomas Healey Distinguished Professor of Theology, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., and founder of the Georgetown Center for the Study of Science and Religion. His books include God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, and Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution.

Gail Becker
Gail Becker has been executive director of the Louis-ville Science Center since 1991. Before moving to Kentucky, she worked for the U.S. Information Agency in Washington, D.C., where she developed and produced exhibitions for foreign audiences.

Dennis Wint

Museum News: Do you think the controversy surrounding the IMAX film Volcanoes of the Deep Sea is justified?

Dennis Wint: I’m a little surprised that Volcanoes of the Deep Sea has become the lightning rod, given that Imax movies have presented evolution, directly and indirectly, for many years. There are many other films, like Galapagos and Africa, that have been more explicit about evolution.

Volcanoes says that the organisms living in that deep environment have the same molecular makeup that we do, but that they’re not necessarily related. It might have been better to say that we share common traits, such as DNA.

Can science and religion coexist?

Yes. In Origin of the Species, Darwin writes, “Having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one, and that, while the planet has gone cycling on in accordance with the fixed laws of gravity from so simple a beginning, endless forms, so beautiful and so wonderful, have been and are being evolved.” I think there is an acknowledgement of a higher being. I do not believe that science and religion are incompatible.

But I don’t think evolution and intelligent design can coexist in a science museum. The position of The Franklin Institute is to present generally accepted scientific thought and new and emerging issues of science and technology that are based on the fundamental processes of science. Intelligent design is based not on science but on faith. Therefore, the Franklin would not present it as an alternative to evolution.

Intelligent design is not a part of biology, chemistry, or physics. The discussion belongs in a theology or philosophy class. There are stories that are part of our mission to tell. But they are stories that are founded in science and technology.

Have you encountered resistance from the religious community on any exhibit in your career? How did you handle it?

Prior to coming to Philadelphia, I was the president of the St. Louis Science Center, which is located in the middle of the country in a region that tends to be religiously conservative. A major building expansion that opened in 1991 included a section on ecology and the environment, including dinosaurs, The vast majority of the community was in support. There was an occasional individual who objected to the theme of evolution, but I would say even then it was fairly low key.

In response to those complaints, we said that the mission of the St. Louis Science Center—very much like the mission of the Franklin Institute—is to present current and scientific thought and to explore those new and emerging issues. This is our role and responsibility to the community.

When we develop a new program or new exhibit, we consider three things: what’s the current scientific thought, what is the historic strength of the institution, and what will be of interest and of value to the public. An exhibition on intelligent design meets neither the first nor the second criteria.

What about the museum as a public forum for controversial issues?

There are a number of controversies—including intelligent design—that are difficult to solve in public debate. For example, a public forum on abortion in a science museum would not change very many people’s minds. People have generally made up their minds based on personal beliefs or values. And to some degree, evolution may be in the same position. People’s beliefs are so hardened already, what would be gained by a public forum?

However, museums do have a role in addressing controversial issues when there can be a meaningful outcome. A case in point is “Body Worlds,” a traveling show that features the anatomy of real human bodies, including the development of the fetus—important to the discussion of human physiology. This exhibit recently closed at the California Science Center, is now at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and will be on display here beginning in October. In about 1992, [shortly before I came on board] The Franklin Institute installed an exhibit on AIDS. It was a risk, but it was an important issue of science. There was some public backlash, but there were disclaimers before you went into the exhibit. About five years later, the exhibit was updated and the disclaimer removed. Now and again we would get a comment from a teacher or parent, but they were very rare, perhaps one or two a year.

What should museum staff do when faced with a controversial exhibit topic?

When faced with potentially controversial exhibits or programming, one place you would go is to your board for significant policy decisions. Management typically makes decisions on exhibitions and programs but given the content of “Body Worlds,” for example, I didn’t want anyone to be surprised. An important rule of management is “don’t surprise your boss.” As it turned out, the board unanimously approved going forward with “Body Worlds.” That gave me an enormous amount of support in the event there was controversy.

This discussion is not one that ought to be limited to the science museum field. The American Association for the Advancement of Science and the other scientific institutes have clearly defined positions on where partnerships can be developed.

What should museums keep in mind when considering what to exhibit?

In the end, the museum’s guiding principle is its mission. I think that there are some inherent or possible conflicts between some of the things we say as a field, such as engaging our communities, and community norms. Each community and museum have to make that decision for themselves.

Science museums celebrate science and technology. But we recognize that there are people who may have a different perception, and we welcome them. To some extent, people self-select. If they understand your mission and don’t agree with it, why would they want to come and participate?

Stephen Low

Why did some theaters and science centers decide not to take your film?

Stephen Low: Sometimes rejection is formal, and sometimes it’s informal, so it’s hard to know why some theaters decided not to take the film. In some cases we were talking to people we’ve known for many years, and they told us informally that [the film’s apparent contradiction with the Bible] is why they’re not running the film. Do I want to throw that in their face? Well, no. They’re longtime customers.

How much money a museum stands to make bespeaks the level of controversy it is willing to endure. If the film will make a lot of money, the institution is willing to listen to a lot of complaining. If they don’t think the film is going to be as popular, maybe they won’t listen as much.

The real issue for me is whether or not these complaints are some form of censorship. Should some sector of society have a right to interfere with other people’s education? Is there not room for a variety of views, including both science and religion? I guess the intolerance of other’s beliefs is what’s disturbing a lot of people.

As an educational filmmaker, it also appears to me that education is becoming a secondary concern to box office numbers. A lot of theaters said they can’t afford to run educational films because they’re not popular with kids, so they run travelogue films and something I call sci-porn.

Sci-porn?

Yes, sci-porn. It isn’t really educational; there’s just an illusion of science in it. Mostly these films are about kayaking and surfboarding, that kind of stuff. They’re not doing any real science. Some theaters asked why we didn’t choose attractive, young scientists for Volcanoes, why we didn’t have a pretty girl in the film. We didn’t because the old guys in Volcanoes are the equivalent of Nobel Prize winners—they’re the real discoverers of the hydrothermal vents!

I completely understand where the institutions are coming from, though. They’ve got to keep their doors open, and that’s a challenge nowadays for a lot of public institutions. It’s a dilemma, and that’s probably bigger than whether a few Christians are calling up and complaining about the age of the Earth.

But the press isn’t interested in that, because it’s a dull problem.

Does a science museum have a responsibility to present the religious point of view regarding evolution?

Churches have distinct buildings for a purpose, so they can teach their followers their form of knowledge. And to have that overlap into educational institutions and publicly funded science museums is a mistake.

You could also argue that Christianity is only one religion, and so how do you accommodate all the different religions and their views in relation to science? You really can’t, so you should, I think, keep them as separate as possible.

Scientific methods are distinct and rigidly followed by public institutions. They don’t really accommodate religious views very well, if those views are taken literally. There’s virtually nothing in science, I mean from the Earth being formed onwards, that isn’t contradicted by the Bible. The age of the Earth, the part in the film where I talked about how modern DNA analysis shows that all animals are related—any of these things are pitfalls.

And so science and religion should be kept separate, and if you don’t want to go to a science museum, don’t go. Go to church.

I mean, that would be a simple explanation. I suppose if the society was homogeneous and completely Christian, you might make some kind of an argument for bringing religion into a science museum. But even so, I think that would put you at a distinct disadvantage over other countries because in the end, students need to hear the truth as we know it, not as we want it to be.

Does Volcanoes of the Deep Sea have greater box office potential now in light of the controversy?

At least in this case, it seems to be a good thing because people are debating and talking about it now. A lot of people have demanded that their kids be given science in science centers, and that’s good. Debate in that area is good. When it’s quietly done, it’s probably not very good.

Having said that, I would not have even guessed at stirring up something like this. I mean, who would have known that the press would be interested, or that anybody would be interested?

Up here in Canada, we don’t have those kinds of debates, so that wouldn’t even have ever come up, so it’s a kind of a rural Southern thing, I think. In the big cities it wouldn’t come up either.

Does there have to be a conflict between religion and science when the topic is evolution?

I don’t have a conflict with science. Science, in my own mind, it’s just a celebration of nature and God, and to study it and understand it—well, it just becomes more and more amazing. To get caught up on a date or a length of time is silly. If you believe that God created the universe, then you should study it. And there’s plenty of mystery, and beauty, and wonder in nature. I think literalness is a mistake.

Volcanoes of the Deep Sea took about 10 years and somewhere between $7 million and $8 million to make. Are IMAX films profitable for the filmmakers?

We easily spent that much. After distribution fees, we won’t recoup a quarter of that. If you put more than 10 percent equity into a film, you’re going to lose your money. As a result, film production has dropped off and that’s why I say money is the bigger problem.

The Bush administration has cut the National Science Foundation budget. The monies we got for Volcanoes are no longer available. NSF’s limited funds now go to fewer and fewer productions. [Editor’s note: The Informal Science Education budget of the National Science Foundation, which funds IMAX films, increased in 2005 by .01 percent to $63.06 million.]

And that’s a serious problem going forward. You have to consider that our basic costs to make an IMAX films are 10 times higher than Hollywood’s. Our negative is 10 times bigger than Hollywood’s negative, and that’s why it looks so beautiful. IMAX is the Ansel Adams of cinema.

Hollywood is taking advantage of these publicly funded theaters by blowing up, or what’s called up-resing, their existing Hollywood films shot in 35 mm and showing them in the educational science museum network.

The side that still actually films with IMAX cameras is in a crisis because there isn’t enough money to make the films. I think in general the museum networks undervalued the film production. I think they never understood how expensive it was and how risky it was. And that’s pretty serious because the film production has dropped off.

The fundamental problem is that there has been a lot of public money spent on IMAX theaters, but no one put together a formal structure to fund the creation of educational IMAX films. The government needs to recognize that they spent billions of dollars on the hardware—the theaters—and now they have to spend some money on the software—the films.

Some people will tell you that the industry or the institutions will bumble their way through it, but I don’t think so. The support is not going to come from the commercial side, because there’s not enough money to be made, so I think the government needs to support these endeavors.

But for sure, the school buses pull up in front of these institutions all day long. An incredible opportunity to show kids the world in an educational way is about to disappear.

Has this controversy had any effect on your future filming plans?

We did the science film, Volcanoes, and then we did a film for Boeing, which is about fighter planes. The Boeing film was a lot easier and more successful for us because it’s an advocacy film paid for by a company. Volcanoes was a nightmare. The message to us is that we’ll likely only ever do sponsored films, because the educational film isn’t worth it. It’s not embraced aggressively enough by the theaters to enable us to continue to make more science films.

For us to break even, we would have had to have pretty much universal endorsement from the museums, and science films don’t get that.

Why do filmmakers like you pursue educational IMAX films in the face of such adversity?

Because it’s a wonderful way to spend your time. There’s nothing better than education films because they’re interesting. I started in Hollywood films and worked on a number of films in the ’70s, and these documentaries are a lot more fun because you’re working with real people.

I’ve worked with Jane Goodall. I worked with Mick Jagger. I worked with the whole Russian Deep Ocean Program, with all the real Russian deep diving guys. I dove with them. I’ve worked with fighter pilots, with astronauts, racecar drivers, and beavers. That’s exciting.

When I first met James Cameron, that’s exactly what he said. He said you documentary guys have all the fun. We just work with plywood mock-ups and phony actors, and you’re out there hobnobbing with the astronauts and the aquanauts.

That’s true, you pay a price. You don’t become famous doing this, and you don’t make Hollywood money, but what a great way to make a living, if you can.

John F. Haught

What do people mean when they say “creationism”? Do all creationists oppose evolution?

John F. Haught: Creationism is a term that is used in a number of different senses. Every Christian, Jew, and Muslim believes that God is the creator of the universe and of everything in it. If you want to call them creationists, I suppose that’s okay.

However, today the term “creationist” is usually used to refer only to a very limited group of believers. These are people who think that the creation story—actually, there are several creation stories in the Bible—is irreconcilable with evolutionary science. They interpret Biblical texts very literally. And in doing so, they offend not only scientists but also many of their fellow religionists. By assuming that the Bible is teaching science, they are actually trivializing what many of us see as sacred text filled with deep meaning that can’t be unfolded in a scientific idiom.

At the same time, they also are insulting scientists by presenting the Biblical text as an alternative to contemporary evolutionary biology and other sciences when, in fact, the Biblical writers had no such intention at all. They wrote long before the age of science so they could not possibly have been trying to present an alternative scientific view.

Although most Biblical followers are not what I would call creationists, that doesn’t mean that we don’t believe in the doctrine of creation. In fact, most of us believe that God creates the world through evolution.

The people who opposed the IMAX film [Volcanoes of the Deep Sea] are probably assuming that somehow the Bible and science conflict with one another and that since so many people accept the Bible, they must, therefore, dismiss evolution. I think that’s an erroneous and ultimately a deeply harmful assumption to make.

You seem to be implying that there is no real conflict between science and religion.

For science and religion to conflict with each other, they would both have to be trying to do the same thing. When people confuse the two, they are going outside the bounds of what science really means and what religion really means.

Religion answers questions about the ultimate meaning of life, about the ultimate origins of the universe, about purpose in life, and it also gives a basis for values. Science deals with how things work, with proximate causes rather than ultimate explanations. If science tries to provide ultimate explanations, then it’s doing the work of religion.

So there is no place for religion in a science museum?

Religion should not be taught by science museums. But certainly there’s nothing wrong with science museums pointing out what religions are saying and that science and religions do not conflict with each other because they’re talking about two very different sets of questions.

And yet there is growing public debate centered on the idea that there is a conflict between science and religion.

It’s not really a conflict between science and religion but a conflict between belief systems. For example, a scientist might say science is the only road to truth and therefore, religion is wrong. But that’s a belief not a scientifically verifiable fact; there’s no way you can prove that science is the only road to truth. When scientists start philosophizing, they’re no longer speaking as scientists but as believers.

Likewise, when people present religion as though it’s scientific information, that also causes a conflict. But the conflict, you see, is actually between a distorted view of religion and a distorted view of science. Evolution is a hot-button issue today. Of all of the issues in the so-called science and religion controversy that is the one that gets the most attention. But, again, this is really a pseudo-conflict between personalities, hidden political agendas, and the hidden belief systems of both scientists and religious people.

Do you think scientists and creationists will ever be able to come to an understanding, to compromise, if you will?

It’s going to be very difficult to find a resolution; it’s going to take a long time. It’s not just in the Christian world; it’s even more difficult at times for many Muslims to embrace evolution.

Some scientists make statements about religion that reveal incredible ignorance. And many of us in the religious community are incredibly ignorant about science. It’s due to very poor science education and even poorer religious education. Until we improve science and religious education, we’re going to have these problems.

Can museums bridge the gap between science and religion?

That’s going to be very hard because of the very succinct way in which museums present information. Sometimes a little formulaic statement under an item can cause confusion. You’ve got to be careful not to make statements in your exhibits that sound like a religious doctrine that might be opposed by other religions.

For example, some scientists and philosophers believe that evolution is the ultimate explanation for the variety of life on Earth. But to a religious person like myself, a theologian, evolution is a proximate, not an ultimate, explanation. I think it is unwise for a museum to give the impression that science provides the ultimate explanation of things, rather than a scientific explanation of things.

My advice would be simply to present your data, your information, your exhibits in neutral scientific terms. And if people object, that battle has to be fought somewhere other than in the museum itself. Let science be science and let religion be religion.

Gail Becker

Has the creationism versus evolution debate ever been an issue at the Louisville Science Center and, if so, how did you deal with it?

Gail Becker: It’s not been at a high level of public debate, but the Louisville Science Center has encountered it. We present accurate science or at least we try to. And at times, we’ve had exhibits and films [focusing on evolution]. For example, the Jane Goodall film Wild Chimpanzees (2003) deals with the story of evolution. And, we just had a temporary exhibit called “When Crocodiles Ruled” [closed May 8]. I once got a call because we had a book on evolution in our gift shop. If there is an issue, I’ll either get a letter or a phone call. But recently I’ve heard nothing.

When I do respond, it’s always very respectfully. I say, for example, that we serve a very large and very diverse audience. We are a science museum, and evolution is a scientific way of looking at changes that have occurred. And that’s it.

Every city is unique. When I moved here in 1991, my perceptions changed very quickly. I had thought, like everybody else who doesn’t live here, that Louisville was a southern city. But geographically it is right at the northern edge of the state on the Ohio River; across the river is Indiana. My assumption had been that everyone in the South is Southern Baptist; that is not the case at all. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is located here, and one of the leading proponents of intelligent design is on the faculty. But Louisville is more diverse than people in other locations think. It also has the headquarters of the Presbyterian Church and a very large Catholic community, as well as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. There are a lot of church-supported schools in Louisville, such as the Catholic school system and a lot of private schools that are affiliated with Protestant churches. We get a large field-trip audience from many of these schools.

Has anyone ever asked you to present the creationist viewpoint, and how might you respond to that?

I have not been asked, but you have to look at who your audience is. It might be worthy of a talk but certainly not an exhibit.

Do you think that religion has any place in science museums at all?

We had a traveling exhibit several years ago, “A Question of Truth,” that was developed by the Ontario Science Center. It is a thought-provoking exhibit about scientific discoveries as they evolve over time and scientific discoveries that have been used in evil ways, such as genocide or to show racial differences. But it also touched upon things that are not traditional science, that are part of other cultures—like acupuncture and herbal remedies.

There might be a place for religion in a science museum. I wouldn’t exclude it. Certainly many scientists have religious beliefs. But it has to be in context. And perhaps a really neat exhibit topic might be “Religion and Science.” Then there are natural history museums, another group of museums that has to deal with this issue. They present ethnographic portrayals of other cultures [which naturally include] religious beliefs. But it has to be done very respectfully.

The Kentucky Board of Education removed the word “evolution” from its curriculum a few years ago; has that affected the museum’s relationship with the schools?

That decision happened before I moved here but I think the Kentucky Science Teachers Association decided that they would not make it [an issue]. They still teach evolution but it’s called “change over time.” The “e” word isn’t used.

A science museum is both a community institution and a scientific institution. Do you see any conflict between those two roles?

I think there’s a very fine line between them. We are a community institution and we have to listen to what our audience wants. On the other hand, as AAM has surveyed, the public has a lot of trust in museums. You have to maintain a strong credibility in the community. There are times when you need to take a stand and say “this is science.” But you also have to acknowledge the diversity in your community. We’ve had other sensitive issues here, more sensitive than evolution.

For example?

Tobacco. We’re a tobacco state and Kentucky is number one in lung cancer and number one in smoking. There’s a relationship there. In our permanent exhibit “The World Within Us” we address these serious health issues but in a respectful way. There are ways of presenting a topic so that you don’t offend. The tobacco farmers in Kentucky for many generations took great pride in their burley tobacco; that was prized tobacco. You can’t slap them in the face.

That exhibit deals with several sensitive issues, including the high rate of teen pregnancy in Kentucky and the lack of prenatal care. We have a fetal development exhibit that has actual specimens. We spent a lot of time talking to educators and ethicists about whether we should use plastic models or actual specimens. There was some controversy about that. What it came down to is that people want to see real objects in museums. So we have actual specimens on loan from the University of Louisville’s School of Medicine. One section of the exhibit, in fact, is pretty didactic, featuring systems of the body. We have actual organ specimens in every section.

And how did people respond?

I was prepared [for complaints], particularly about the fetal development exhibit, even though we weren’t getting into the pro-life or abortion issue. Soon after the exhibit opened a mother called and said, “my daughter said you had dead babies in the museum!” We talked about it and she said, “I wish I had known in advance so I could have been prepared to talk to her about it.” I also got a call one day from a woman who had recently had a miscarriage and found the exhibit upsetting. But I was really prepared for much more controversy.

You need to talk to people in your community when you are dealing with these sensitive subjects. We also have a display of various [birth-control] devices called “Protect Yourself.” In this case, the exhibit isn’t flashy. It’s in a niche so a small child wouldn’t even be interested in it. When we were planning it, we talked to the Catholic Archdiocese, among others. They said that they understood the need to have this kind of information but wanted to ensure that abstinence had a primary role, which it did.

You are never going to satisfy everybody. But there are ways of handling sensitive subjects in a way that’s not offensive. You don’t have to be preachy, though some science centers may want to be. I feel that because you are dealing with many voices in the community you need to present [accurate science] but also respect people’s different beliefs.

Was the IMAX film Volcanoes of the Deep scheduled to play in Louisville?

When we select IMAX films we almost always try to get a print and we’ll conduct an audience test. We’ll test it with adults and with school groups; we have different groups we can bring in. We tested Volcanoes, and it didn’t test very well.

Why?

The majority felt that it was a boring film. And I think that’s the real issue.

It wasn’t too “pro-evolution” for your audiences?

The question we asked was, “would you recommend the film to your friends and family?” And the answer was no. People fell asleep during the screening. I wasn’t here when we did the test so I’m not a good one to talk to about it. But I’ve seen parts of it and it’s a slow-moving film. Some people said it has absolutely fabulous underwater photography, and it is fascinating. But that wasn’t enough to sustain our audience; it doesn’t have much action.

Of course, every community is different. We always compare ourselves with other science centers that have IMAX theaters. Some films that do very well in one area don’t do well in another due to differences in the community.

Is there a lesson museums can take from the “creationism versus evolution” debate?

From a museum management perspective, I have a large board and they’re active in many ways. They offer advice and oversight and raise money but we really never have talked much about the intellectual aspects of being a science museum. When the New York Times and Washington Post articles about Volcanoes came out, I sent them to all my board members. I thought they ought to know about the controversy. The Courier-Journal, our local paper, contacted us but decided not to run the story. It was basketball season, and that was consuming local interest.

But the newspaper articles started a dialogue; my board members started e-mailing each other. The last weekend in March, we had a board meeting, and they were talking about it. Those conversations really took everybody to a much higher intellectual level than reviewing the monthly financial report. The dialogue was animated and stimulating! Sometimes [controversies] open up new doors for you.