As most have now read, Laurie David - producer of An Inconvenient Truth - authored an editorial appearing in the Washington Post stating that the National Science Teachers Association refused to accept 50,000 free copies of the movie. In response, the NSTA has issued a press release stating that:

• NSTA policy states that the association cannot endorse any outside organization's products and/or messages to its members.
• The NSTA suggested making the DVD available via alternative means of distribution (e.g. by providing a mailing list of our members to producers, announcing its availability in our publications, etc.).

Their statement, however, did not address the quote cited in the Post article stating "Accepting the DVDs would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters," and this is the issue that has inflamed so many Americans.

While the NSTA readily accepts financial support from special interest businesses, it draws the line at accepting reputable, scientifically endorsed content free of charge. The problem is that while teachers and educators can have 100% control over the way a film is presented in a lesson plan, ongoing financial support as supplied by corporations will always be subject to political pressures. The public is rightfully wary of this and the NSTA, though well meaning and reputable, is no more immune to financial pressure than any other large organization.

True, the NSTA did offer another way of potentially distributing the films, but they did so while hiding behind policy. A policy that obstructs the ready acceptance of a valuable educational resource, while at the same time allows them to receive corporate dollars from organizations like Exxon Mobil who are infamous for funding disinformation on global warming. A fact which was pointed out clearly by the Royal Society - one of the world's leading scientific bodies - earlier this year.

If the NSTA is to be trusted to engage in responsible relationships with active deniers of climate change science, should it not also be trusted to faithfully and objectively distribute information that is consistent with the best science in the world, and that addresses the biggest environmental problem facing all citizens and all students?

I think so.


For more response on the debate visit the comments to the article on Digg.com.