Multi-omics or “pan-omics” is a scientific approach to biology that combines data sets from multiple focused fields of study — genomics, proteomics, metagenomics, etc. — purportedly to help us better understand biological chemistry. The tools used to merge the data sets are, typically, computer applications. The OmicTools service lists more than 99 softwares related to multi-omic data analysis, and also a similar number of databases on the topic.
I have very little interest in multi-omics research… but, as noted in Part One, I was struck by a phrase used in a National Institutes of Health news release last week:
New research consortium will develop innovative strategies for clinical studies involving ancestrally diverse populations…
Many scientific researchers hold a theory that people from different ancestral backgrounds are affected differently by certain chronic or acute diseases and health issues. Perhaps multi-omic data processing can help clarify those differences?
The phrase “ancestrally diverse populations” caught my attention last week, in part because of my planned trip to Juneau, Alaska — a place where numerous ancestrally diverse populations exist side-by-side, and also the site of last weekend’s Aak’w Rock Indigenous Music Festival…
Also, I had been thinking about diverse populations because of an upcoming meeting of the Pagosa Peak Open School (PPOS) Board of Directors, and a planned discussion about how “controversial issues” should be handled in a public school… and more specifically, the proper way to handle “controversial issues” in a charter school like PPOS, with its ‘Project Based Learning’ curriculum.
Disclosure: I’m a member of the PPOS Board, but this editorial series reflects only my own personal opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of any other PPOS Board members or the Board as a whole.
PPOS is authorized by the Archuleta School District, but operates independently to fulfill its mission of exploring educational alternatives. Colorado began developing a system of independent, publicly-funded charter schools in 1992, as a way to allow local community groups and school districts to develop “schools of choice” that might appeal to a diverse set of families. Some charter schools aim to serve specific populations in the community; PPOS however aims to serve any family in Archuleta County looking for an alternative approach to education.
You can learn more about PPOS on its website.
Last Wednesday’s meeting of the PPOS Board of Directors touched on a number of topics, but the one that generated the most debate concerned the adoption or development of a policy, to guide the staff when dealing with “controversial issues and materials”.
The debate was friendly, but still emotionally charged.
The ‘controversial material’ that had generated the concern was a book, shared in a recent classroom lesson, that involved a transgender character.
I’m not clear, even after a lengthy debate on Wednesday, whether any of the other PPOS Board members have transgender individuals in their families. In my own case, I have a grandson and a niece who are transgender, and both of them are fine people. From my perspective, a policy that would define transgender persons — such as my family members — as inappropriate to a normal classroom discussion strikes me as terribly unfortunate, and morally wrong.
However, the term “controversial issues” can be applied to other issues beside transgender individuals. A policy aimed at controlling and limiting controversy in a school setting might be applied to a wide variety of “issues” and “materials” in a community like Pagosa Springs.
I’m reading, in news outlets, that in certain states, it’s no longer legally allowable to teach certain aspects of American History if the lesson might make one or more students feel uncomfortable.
The Archuleta School District Board of Education has adopted an official policy concerning “Teaching about Controversial Issues and Use of Controversial Materials”. Policy ‘IMB’ defines controversial issues this way:
Controversial issues are defined as those problems, subjects or questions about which there are significant differences of opinion and discussion of which generally create strong feelings among people. Although there may be disagreement over what the facts are and what they mean, subjects usually become controversial issues because of differences in interpretations of the facts or the values people use in applying the facts.
If I were asked to make a list of topics that might be considered “controversial” according to this definition, my list would include at least the following:
- legal abortion
- the existence of institutional racism
- gun control
- immigration policies
- the existence and importance of human-cause climate change
- the rights of citizens to adopt alternative sexual patterns, including same-sex marriage, without discrimination
- the current crisis in health care and public health
- environmental policies
- income inequality
- the influence of wealth and corporations in politics
- equal rights and equal pay for women
- the proper role of AI and the Internet
- alleged political corruption
These topics are not only potentially controversial; they are also some of the most important topics in current civil discourse, and as such — from my perspective — are eminently worthy of debate and the open exchange of ideas, in a school setting and in society in general.
Assuming, of course, that we want students to develop an understanding of the real world. Maybe we don’t?
In my view, our PPOS staff, who may wish to present our students with exposure to the most important ideas in current civil discourse, might also have no way of knowing in advance whether any particular classroom lesson will offend or disturb members of the PPOS community (parents, staff, students, community members.). Most of the controversial topics I listed above would probably not be central to the teaching of young children in grades K-4. But they might be very pertinent to certain ‘Project Based Learning’ activities in the upper grades. (PPOS serves students K-8.)
A policy that defines a discussion of controversial topics as ‘off limits’ risks defining the most important ideas in American society as ‘off limits’.
I’m fairly sure no one involved with PPOS wants to inadvertently and unintentionally discourage discussions concerning — and education about — the most important topics in current civil discourse.
At the same time, PPOS staff and leadership recognizes that the sharing of controversial issues and/or materials could possibly have an impact on student enrollment… if families either purposely choose PPOS, or purposely avoid PPOS, based on our approach to “controversial issues”…