By Alex Lennane 16/07/2018 The company said in a statement that “overall, these 14 intercontinental plane replacements are capacity neutral, but operational wise with significant cost, efficiency and reliability benefits.“And, while DHL Express in the past has chiefly been leasing aircraft to operate its global network on the routes, the purchase of fully owned freighter aircraft will improve the cost position of the DHL Express division. For 2018, pre-payments have already been included in the group capex guidance.”DHL added that the new fleet would help it cut emissions by 18%, and boost its ecommerce capabilities.Next to announce was Qatar Airways Cargo, which put in an order for five 777 freighters, to add to its fleet of 13 and two 747-8Fs. The age of the freighter is clearly not over – although the 777 is the new aircraft of choice.Orders pledged at the Farnborough Air Show are starting to trickle in.First off the block in cargo was DHL Express, which announced an order of 14 777 freighters and options on seven more. The delivery of the first four is expected to be completed next year.The company said the new freighters would gradually replace older aircraft in its fleet, while the options would “support cross border e-commerce business as a profitable growth driver”.
However, the adjudicator in the case found that although the BCSC proved that litigation privilege applied to some of the records — and that they could be withheld as a result — privilege doesn’t apply to most of the records; so, they could not be withheld. The applicant was seeking access to all correspondence by email, telephone, conversation notes, etc., between the BCSC and various other authorities, including the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), both within Canada and/or internationally. But the BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that disclosure would harm a law enforcement matter. The anonymous applicant then asked the OIPC to review the BCSC’s decision. There are 567 records that the BCSC withheld. The OIPC decision states the BCSC argued that litigation privilege applies to all of the records in dispute and that legal advice privilege also applies to five of the records, which were emails between the BCSC and Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) staff. The applicant argued that neither type of privilege applies. The OIPC ruled that the BCSC did not establish that the emails with the OSC qualified as confidential communications between the BCSC and its lawyer. As a result, they are not subject to legal advice privilege. However, unlike legal advice privilege, litigation privilege applies only in the context of litigation itself; once the litigation has concluded, the privilege ends, the decision explains. The OIPC decision says the BCSC argued that all of the records in dispute were created at a time when litigation was reasonably contemplated — after it has issued an investigation order. Although the OIPC sided with the BCSC in finding that the BCSC reasonably contemplated litigation once the case had been referred for a more in-depth investigation, the OIPC said that determining the dominant purpose for the creation of each record is a much more challenging issue in this case. The applicant in the case argued that the dominant purpose for creating the records was investigation, not litigation. The BCSC argued that the dominant purpose was to prepare for litigation. Ultimately, the OIPC ruled that “only a small portion of the records were created for the dominant purpose of litigation,” noting that most of the disputed records are email communications between BCSC investigators and the investigators of other regulatory bodies, financial services institutions and individuals who were interviewed as part of the investigation. “Based on my understanding of the content and context of the records, it is apparent that the majority were created for the dominant purpose of investigating and uncovering the facts of what took place,” the OIPC decision states. “They are about the practicalities of the [investigation], such as arranging meetings between investigators, scheduling witness interviews and sharing information with other regulatory bodies, and they do not even refer to the BCSC litigation. It is not evident to me that these records were created for the dominant purpose of the BCSC hearing litigation.” Even though records were created after a notice of hearing was issued in the case, and litigation was already underway, this does not mean that the records themselves were created primarily for litigation, the OIPC decision says. Thus, the OIPC concluded that only 23 of the disputed records qualified for litigation privilege and that the most of the remaining documents were created for investigating, communicating and co-operating with the investigations of other regulatory bodies. As a result, one of the elements of the test for litigation privilege has not been proven, so the documents may not be withheld, the OIPC ordered. Litigation privilege continues to apply to those 23 records, the OIPC determined, because the applicant has indicated that there may be an appeal of the BCSC hearing panel decision that was handed down against the applicant in this case, and a sanctions hearing has yet to be held to determine any penalties in the case. “In light of the fact that the sanctions portion of the BCSC hearing has not yet concluded, and an appeal cannot be ruled out at this point, I find that the litigation is not over. Therefore, litigation privilege still applies to these 23 records and BCSC may continue to withhold them,” the OIPC decision states. The OIPC has ordered the BCSC to comply with its decision by April 10. James Langton British Columbia’s privacy commissioner has ordered the B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) to turn over hundreds of documents sought by the target of a BCSC regulatory proceeding. A decision from B.C.’s Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) states that the BCSC must turn over certain documents that it refused to provide to an unnamed applicant the regulator investigated in connection with possible market manipulation. The OIPC decision says that the BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege and that certain privacy rules applied. Share this article and your comments with peers on social media Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
BFI investors plead for firm’s sale Beatrice Paez PwC alleges deleted emails, unusual transactions in Bridging Finance case An Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)hearing panel has approved a settlement agreement between IIROC staff and Sasha Jacob, former CEO of Jacob Securities Inc. in Toronto, following his admission that he neglected to oversee the activities and individuals at the firm. Share this article and your comments with peers on social media Keywords EnforcementCompanies Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada Related news As part of the agreement, Jacob will be suspended from acting in the capacity of “ultimate designated person” for three years and fined $100,000. Jacob has also agreed to pay costs totalling $10,000. According to the settlement, Jacob failed to ensure that individuals who served on his behalf acted in accordance with the regulations set by IIROC and his firm from November 2013 to December 2015. In particular, the IIROC hearing panel found that there wasn’t sufficient due diligence to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified and resolved. The hearing panel also heard that there was a lack of “daily supervisory reviews” of retail and institutional account trading. In addition, Jacob neglected to file his registration with IIROC in time from 2006-09. The investigation into Jacob’s conduct was launched in October 2014. His IIROC membership was suspended in December 2015. Photo copyright: serezniy/123RF serezniy/123RF Mouth mechanic turned market manipulator Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Woodvale community receives Federal funding for new Community Hub The City of Greater Bendigo has received a $495,000 grant from the Australian Government’s Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program to develop a new community hub at the Woodvale Recreation Reserve.The project will include the construction of a new, multi-purpose community hub building with integrated public toilets, kitchenette, storage and meeting spaces and a separate storage shed.City of Greater Bendigo Mayor Cr Jennifer Alden said the funding is exciting news for the Woodvale community who identified the project as a key priority in the Woodvale Community Plan, with the community also contributing funds towards the project.“The current facilities at the Woodvale Recreation Reserve have served the community well for many years but they no longer meet current standards or the community’s needs so this is fantastic news all round and the City is very grateful to the Australian Government for supporting this important rural project in Greater Bendigo,” Cr Alden said.“Community hubs like this one are important for community wellbeing because they support people to connect with one another, to participate in events and other activities, and to connect with service providers and services.”Local resident and Chair of the Woodvale Recreation Reserve Committee of Management Kerry Errington said the Woodvale community is both excited and thankful to receive this funding through the Australian Government’s Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program.“The Woodvale community has been passionately advocating for this community hub for nearly a decade after the need for it was identified through community planning and consultation processes,” Ms Errington said.“There is broad community support for the project. The Woodvale community has worked hard to raise funds towards the project and we are delighted we will soon have a new facility that will be more accessible and able to support so many different uses.“This new community hub will make Woodvale’s future event brighter and support the wellbeing of current and future generations. My fellow committee members and I can’t wait to be able to share it and its beautiful bushland setting located on Dja Dja Wurrung country with even more people.”The project will be managed by the City of Greater Bendigo with construction set to commence in early 2021.The Australian Government’s Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program supports jobs and the resilience of local economies to help communities bounce back from the COVID-19 pandemic. /Public Release. This material comes from the originating organization and may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. View in full here. Why?Well, unlike many news organisations, we have no sponsors, no corporate or ideological interests. We don’t put up a paywall – we believe in free access to information of public interest. Media ownership in Australia is one of the most concentrated in the world (Learn more). Since the trend of consolidation is and has historically been upward, fewer and fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media in our country. According to independent assessment, about 98% of the media sector is held by three conglomerates. This tendency is not only totally unacceptable, but also to a degree frightening). Learn more hereWe endeavour to provide the community with real-time access to true unfiltered news firsthand from primary sources. It is a bumpy road with all sorties of difficulties. We can only achieve this goal together. Our website is open to any citizen journalists and organizations who want to contribute, publish high-quality insights or send media releases to improve public access to impartial information. You and we have the right to know, learn, read, hear what and how we deem appropriate.Your support is greatly appreciated. All donations are kept completely private and confidential.Thank you in advance!Tags:Australia, Australian, Australian Government, Bendigo, building, community, covid-19, Federal, future, future generation, Government, infrastructure, jobs, Kerry, meet, project, resilience, Victoria
Published: Sept. 26, 2000 For the first time on the campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a fall break is being instituted this year on Oct. 5-6, providing a two-day break during which classes will not be held. “The break is designed to give students a short breather during what would otherwise be 12 weeks of continuous classes between Labor Day and Thanksgiving,” said William Kaempfer, associate vice chancellor of academic affairs. Students will have the opportunity to get some rest and relaxation before they begin to prepare for midterms and finals. The break also will allow students to evaluate where they are in the semester and to plan for the remainder. Students and faculty alike will benefit from the break. “Faculty will find fall break a welcome opportunity to devote additional attention to their research and service obligations,” Kaempfer said. Although faculty and students are given a reprieve, the university staff is expected to report to work as usual. There will be no campus closures and all campus buildings will remain open during the break. Classes are expected to be in session Monday to Wednesday, Oct. 2nd through Oct. 4th, and the university faculty is required to meet their classes next week as they do at any other time, unless other arrangements have been made, Kaempfer said. It is anticipated that fall break will continue in the future and will be held the first or second Thursday and Friday in October, he said. Measured success for the fall break will be shown through students increased ability to learn while reducing their stress levels, Kaempfer said. University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU) leaders originally proposed the fall break in 1998 as a way to split up the long stretch of full class weeks. Students were pleased last year when the proposal was approved. Share Share via TwitterShare via FacebookShare via LinkedInShare via E-mail
Published: Dec. 22, 2011 Share Share via TwitterShare via FacebookShare via LinkedInShare via E-mail University of Colorado Boulder Provost Russell L. Moore today announced that a search committee has named Robert “Bob” Boswell the sole internal finalist for the post of vice chancellor for diversity, equity and community engagement.”I want to thank the committee and its chair, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Patricia Rankin, for its hard work and its selection of Bob Boswell as our sole finalist,” said Moore. “Bob’s long ties to CU-Boulder faculty and staff, his historical commitment to serving underrepresented students, and his willingness to work with all campus constituents make him a strong choice for vice chancellor.”Boswell will meet on Dec. 14 with campus constituent groups to outline his vision for the position, and Moore will solicit feedback from the groups on Boswell’s candidacy following the meetings.Boswell has been occupying the post since July 2010 in an interim capacity. He is a professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology with a long and distinguished career at CU-Boulder.He became an assistant professor in MCDB in 1986 and a professor in 1991. In addition, he was a teaching and graduate research assistant while completing his doctorate at CU-Boulder from 1975 to 1981.He was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator from 1994 to 1999 while retaining his CU-Boulder faculty appointment. Prior to returning to Boulder after graduate school, Boswell was a staff fellow with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina from 1982 to 1986 and a Damon Runyon-Walter Winchell Postdoctoral Fellow at Indiana University in Bloomington from 1981 to 1982.Boswell became the principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health Initiative for Maximizing Student Development, or IMSD, in 2003. The IMSD program encourages educational institutions with fully developed research programs to initiate or expand innovative programs to improve the academic and research capabilities of underrepresented minority students.Boswell earned a bachelor’s degree in biopsychology from Marietta College in Ohio before earning his doctorate in molecular, cellular and developmental biology from CU-Boulder in 1981.The vice chancellor for diversity, equity and community engagement oversees CU-Boulder’s total diversity efforts, including recruitment and retention of students and faculty, campus climate issues and developing best practices to promote diversity within the academic, professional and social environment of the university.
A cutting-edge battery technology developed at the University of Colorado Boulder that could allow tomorrow’s electric vehicles to travel twice as far on a charge is now closer to becoming a commercial reality.CU’s Technology Transfer Office has completed an agreement with Solid Power LLC—a CU-Boulder spinoff company founded by Se-Hee Lee and Conrad Stoldt, both associate professors of mechanical engineering—for the development and commercialization of an innovative solid-state rechargeable battery. Solid Power also was recently awarded a $3.4 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy for the purpose of creating a battery that can improve electric vehicle driving range.The rechargeable batteries that are standard in today’s electric vehicles—as well as in a host of consumer electronics, such as mobile phones and laptops—are lithium-ion batteries, which generate electricity when lithium ions move back and forth between electrodes in a liquid electrolyte solution.Engineers and chemists have long known that using lithium metal as the anode in a rechargeable battery—as opposed to the conventional carbon materials that are used as the anode in conventional lithium-ion batteries—can dramatically increase its energy density. But using lithium metal, a highly reactive solid, in conjunction with a liquid electrolyte is extremely hazardous because it increases the chance of a thermal runaway reaction that can result in a fire or an explosion.Today’s lithium-ion batteries require a bulky amount of devices to protect and cool the batteries. A fire onboard a Boeing Dreamliner in January that temporarily grounded the new class of plane was linked to its onboard lithium-ion battery.Lee and Stoldt solved the safety concerns around using lithium metal by eliminating the liquid electrolyte. Instead, the pair built an entirely solid-state battery that uses a ceramic electrolyte to separate the lithium metal anode from the cathode. Because the solid-state battery is far safer, it requires less protective packaging, which in turn could reduce the weight of the battery system in electric vehicles and help extend their range.Research into the development of solid-state batteries has gone on for a couple of decades, but it has been difficult to create a solid electrolyte that allowed the ions to pass through it as easily as a liquid electrolyte.“The problem has always been that solid electrolytes had very poor performance making their use in rechargeable batteries impractical,” Stoldt said. “However, the last decade has seen a resurgence in the development of new solid electrolytes with ionic conductivities that rival their liquid counterparts.”The critical innovation added by Lee and Stoldt that allows their solid-state lithium battery to out-perform standard lithium-ion batteries is the construction of the cathode, the part of the battery that attracts the positively charged lithium ions once they’re discharged from the lithium metal. Instead of using a solid mass of material, Lee and Stoldt created a “composite cathode,” essentially small particles of cathode material held together with solid electrolyte and infused with an additive that increases its electrical conductivity. This configuration allows ions and electrons to move more easily within the cathode.“The real innovation is an all-solid composite cathode that is based upon an iron-sulfur chemistry that we developed at CU,” Stoldt said. “This new, low-cost chemistry has a capacity that’s nearly 10 times greater than state-of-the-art cathodes.”Last year, Lee and Stoldt partnered with Douglas Campbell, a small-business and early-stage product development veteran, to spin out Solid Power.“We’re very excited about the opportunity to achieve commercial success for the all solid-state rechargeable battery,” said Campbell, Solid Power’s president. “We’re actively engaging industrial commercial partners to assist in commercialization and expect to have prototype products ready for in-field testing within 18 to 24 months.” Important to the early success of the company has been its incubation within CU-Boulder’s College of Engineering and Applied Science’s applied energy storage research center, a part of the college’s energy systems and environmental sustainability initiative.Solid Power is a member of Rocky Mountain Innosphere, a nonprofit technology incubator headquartered in Fort Collins, Colo., with a mission to accelerate the development and success of high-impact scientific and technology startup companies.“We’re very excited to be working with Solid Power’s team to get them to the next level,” said Mike Freeman, Innosphere’s CEO. “This is a big deal to Colorado’s clean-tech space. Solid Power’s batteries will have a huge impact in the EV market, and they have a potential $20 billion market for their technology.”Learn more about Solid Power at http://www.solidpowerbattery.com.Contact: Conrad Stoldt, [email protected] Se-Hee Lee, [email protected] Douglas Campbell, [email protected] Lindsay Lennox, CU Technology Transfer Office, 303-735-[email protected] Laura Snider, CU media relations, [email protected] Categories:AcademicsScience & TechnologyEnvironmentCampus CommunityNews Headlines Share Share via TwitterShare via FacebookShare via LinkedInShare via E-mail “The real innovation is an all-solid composite cathode that is based upon an iron-sulfur chemistry that we developed at CU,” said Conrad Stoldt, associate professor of mechanical engineering. “This new, low-cost chemistry has a capacity that’s nearly 10 times greater than state-of-the-art cathodes.” Published: Sept. 18, 2013
Share Share via TwitterShare via FacebookShare via LinkedInShare via E-mail Categories:AcademicsArts & HumanitiesScience & TechnologyCampus CommunityNews Headlines The CU Art Museum, located on the Boulder campus, will temporarily close to the public beginning Saturday, May 9, to facilitate repairs to the building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.The CU Art Museum is scheduled to reopen in February 2016.During the closure, the museum will offer programming and exhibitions in partnership with campus and community organizations, including the CU Museum of Natural History and the Department of Classics.“Although the building will be closed over the summer and fall, we’ll still have a presence in the community and we’re very excited about the collaborations in development,” said Sandra Firmin, director of the museum. “Closing the building will allow contractors to complete the work more efficiently while protecting the museum’s permanent collection of more than 8,000 objects.”When the museum reopens in February 2016, exhibitions will include:· A new Artist-in-Residency program featuring Janelle Iglesias· Life and Afterlife: Selections of Ancient Chinese Art from the King Collection· An inaugural exhibition by Hope Saska, curator of collections and exhibitionsThe First Folio, which is the first complete collected edition of Shakespeare’s plays and was published in 1623, will be on exhibit Aug. 8-31 in 2016 as part of a national tour sponsored by the Folger Shakespeare Library.Additional information on the museum is available at cuartmuseum.colorado.edu.Contact: Malinda Miller-Huey, CU-Boulder media relations, 303-492-3115 Published: May 8, 2015 “Although the building will be closed over the summer and fall, we’ll still have a presence in the community and we’re very excited about the collaborations in development,” said Sandra Firmin, director of the museum. “Closing the building will allow contractors to complete the work more efficiently while protecting the museum’s permanent collection of more than 8,000 objects.”
HomeLifeHealthCovid-19Santa Monica residents must stay at home under state and county orders to fight coronavirus Mar. 20, 2020 at 8:21 amCovid-19FeaturedLawNewsSanta Monica residents must stay at home under state and county orders to fight coronavirusMadeleine Pauker1 year agocoronavirusCOVID-19gavin newsomOfficials in March ordered would-be shoppers to stay at home. (Matthew Hall) Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered Californians to stay at home Thursday as the number of coronavirus cases in the state reached 1,000 and 19 people died.Newsom’s mandatory order, which allows California residents to continue to use essential services and perform necessary work, follows a Thursday order from Los Angeles County to close nonessential retail stores, malls, shopping centers and playgrounds. Newsom said Thursday that 56% of Californians could be infected with coronavirus by May if the state’s 40 million residents do not follow orders to stay at home as much as possible.The state and county orders apply to Santa Monica, which on Monday closed schools, public buildings, bars, theaters, gyms, salons, dine-in restaurants and Santa Monica Pier to slow the spread of coronavirus. The city also put a temporary moratorium on evictions for residents and businesses financially impacted by coronavirus. As of Thursday, two people in the city had tested positive.Under the state order, Santa Monicans will be only able to visit grocery stores, farmers markets, food banks, restaurants offering delivery and takeout, pharmacies, convenience stores, laundromats, gas stations and banks — as long as they practice social distancing.Newsom said people can also leave their homes to seek healthcare, care for loved ones or go for a walk.He allowed workers in 16 critical sectors, including emergency services, transportation and information technology, to continue to go to work.The county order prohibits residents from gathering indoors in groups of 10 or more and closes nonessential retail stores, malls and playgrounds, including Santa Monica Place and the Third Street Promenade.The city of Los Angeles went a step further than the county, ordering all nonessential businesses to close and move to work at home arrangements. The L.A. order also banned public gatherings of any size.All orders are punishable as misdemeanor offenses. The county order is in place until Apr. 19 but could be extended, and the state order is in effect [email protected] :coronavirusCOVID-19gavin newsomshare on Facebookshare on Twittershow 1 comment 1 Comment Only one small problem with that. It’s unlawful for such “orders” and “mandates”. Not to mention unconstitutional. Then if you look at the factual numbers compared to any other flu, this is an obvious power grab. March 21, 2020 at 7:56 PM California governor: 60,000 homeless could get virusSanta Monica College student diagnosed with COVID-19You Might Also LikeFeaturedNewsBobadilla rejects Santa Monica City Manager positionMatthew Hall6 hours agoFeaturedNewsProtesting parents and Snapchat remain in disagreement over child protection policiesClara Harter17 hours agoFeaturedNewsDowntown grocery to become mixed use developmenteditor17 hours agoNewsBruised but unbowed, meme stock investors are back for moreAssociated Press17 hours agoNewsWedding boom is on in the US as vendors scramble to keep upAssociated Press17 hours agoNewsCouncil picks new City ManagerBrennon Dixson17 hours ago Michael Trigger says: Comments are closed.
Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Recommended Sarah ChaffeeNow a teacher, Sarah Chaffee served as Program Officer in Education and Public Policy at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. She earned her B.A. in Government. During college she interned at Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler’s office and for Prison Fellowship Ministries. Before coming to Discovery, she worked for a private land trust with holdings in the Southwest. Share “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide PLOS, the “Public Library of Science,” is the publisher of a number of a high-profile open access science journals – PLOS ONE, PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, and others. They also publish a range of blogs, including Sci-Ed, which deals with issues relating to science and education. A recent headline there caught my eye, “Go ahead and ‘teach the controversy:’ it is the best way to defend science.”That’s provocative. But here’s the subtitle: “as long as teachers understand the science and its historical context.” Well, who could disagree?But you can probably guess what’s coming. The author is Mike Klymkowsky, a University of Colorado Boulder Professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology. Klymkowsky, as expected, says teaching about the evolution controversy is fine as long as you show how absurd that “controversy” really is. In other words, you can expose students to diverse views on Darwinian theory, so long as the takeaway for them is the orthodox evolutionary one.But I wanted to point out a comment left at the end of the article by someone identified as CWGross, who notes:There is no good reason to believe the naturalist-materialist, Scientistic proposition that science has epistemological primacy (in fact, it is a self-contradictory axiom), so we automatically fail if we refuse to discuss the limitations of science and its inadequacies in questions of morals, politics, aesthetics, relationships, spirituality, etc. Without doing so, we implicitly teach science as an authoritarian system which WILL be rejected, as you note, when it conflicts with lived moral, political, aesthetic, relational, spiritual, etc. experience. You do it yourself, in your confession of ideological dogmatism: “Yet, as a person who firmly believes in the French motto of liberté, égalité, fraternité, laïcité, I feel fairly certain that no science-based scenario on the origin and evolution of the universe or life, or the implications of sexual dimorphism or racial differences, etc, can challenge the importance of our duty to treat others with respect, to defend their freedoms, and to insure their equality before the law.” You express disapproval over philosophies of theistic evolution while at the same time refusing to entertain the implications of a purely materialistic science for your own liberalism.Klymkowsky wants to marshal a purely naturalistic science in the classroom. CWGross points out the conflict with Klymkowsky’s own liberal ideology. Only an “authoritarian” approach can bridge the gap, expecting students to embrace both (rigidly materialist science, liberalism) without acknowledging the contradiction.Our preference is for a pedagogy that is much more modest, and more authentically liberal. Klymkowsky worries that students are “vulnerable to intelligent-design creationist arguments centered around probabilities.” ID isn’t creationism, and there’s a lot more to it than “probabilities,” but never mind. We oppose pushing intelligent design into public school classrooms.Instead, we want students and teachers to be able to explore scientific controversies over mechanisms of evolution and the origin of life discussed in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific publications. Let them study these questions for themselves, and arrive at their own conclusions. Let them struggle, too, with the philosophical implications, but, of course, not in the science classroom.On the evolution controversy, Klymkowsky would likely benefit from more study himself. His understanding of what we argue about appears to be limited. He writes, “For example, a common attack against evolutionary mechanisms relies on a failure to grasp the power of variation, arising from stochastic processes (mutation), coupled to the power of natural, social, and sexual variation.”For a start, he should review the discussions from November’s Royal Society meeting. In fact, some of the ideas presented there would be fascinating to share with students. In the world of professional science, at the highest levels, the foundations of evolutionary theory are up for debate. That fact should not be concealed from young people.Photo: Royal Society discussion panel, London, November 2016, by Günter Bechly. Education Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Tags”teach the controversyacademic freedomevolutionintelligent designliberalismMike KlymkowskyPLOSRoyal SocietyUniversity of Colorado Boulder,Trending Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis Evolution Sure, “Teach the Controversy,” Says an Evolutionist – But You Know What’s Coming NextSarah ChaffeeJune 9, 2017, 1:40 PM Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All