On August 18, 1986, seventy-two Nobel laureates, seventeen state academies of science,
and seven other scientific organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme
Court of the United States in which they defined and agreed upon the nature and scope
of science. The brief was submitted in response to the Louisiana Balanced TreatmentAct
for creation science and evolution science that had been struck down in the Federal
Court of Louisiana in 1985 and was being appealed to the Supreme Court. The Louisiana
trial in general and the amicus curiae brief in particular have historical significance for
the history of science, being unique in the collective mobilization of scientists both in
defense of and in defining science. This article describes the origin and significance of
the brief.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations, in support of appellees; submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1986 as Edwin W. Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard et al., Appellees.
2.
Ayala, Francisco.1986. Press statement by Dr. Francisco AyalaLos Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report2(4): 7.
3.
Bennetta, William.1986. Looking backwards. In Crusade of the credulous , 19-24. Berkeley: California Academy of Sciences Press.
4.
Bird, Wendell.1986. Oral arguments In Official transcript proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United States. Case No. 85-1513, Title: Edwin W. Edwards, Etc., et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard, et al., December 10.
5.
Cowen, Richard.1986. Creationism and the science classroomCalifornia Science Teacher's Journal16: 5, 8-15.
6.
De Camp, L.S.1968. The great monkey trial.New York: Doubleday.
7.
-. 1969. The end of the monkey warScientific American (February): 32-38.
8.
Dykeman, W., and J. Stokeley.1971. Scopes and evolution - the jury is still out.New York Times Magazine , 12 March, 72-76.
9.
Festinger, L., A. Pepitone, and T. Newcomb.1968. Some consequences of de-individuation in a groupJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology47: 89-108.
10.
Feyerabend, Paul.1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.London: Verso .
11.
-. 1978. Science in a free society.London: Verso.
12.
Futuyma, D.J.1982. Science on trial.New York: Pantheon.
13.
Gell-Mann, Murray.1986. Press statement by Dr. Murray Gell-MannLos Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report2(4): 5.
14.
Gould, S.J.1983. A visit to Dayton In Hen's teeth and horse's toes, 263-79. New York: Norton.
15.
-. 1986a . Press statement by Dr. Stephen Jay GouldLos Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report2(4): 5.
16.
Grabiner, J.V., and P.D. Miller.1974. Effects of the Scopes trialScience185:832-36.
17.
Hays, A.G.1957. The Scopes trialIn Evolution and religion , edited by Gail Kennedy, 67-95. New York: Heath.
18.
Kaufman, Beth.1986. SCS organizes important amicus curiae brief for United States Supreme CourtLos Angeles Skeptics Evaluative Report Vol. 2, No. 3, 4-6.
19.
LeBon, G.1886. Psychologie de foulesLondon : Unwin.
20.
Nelkin, D.1982. The Creation controversy.New York: Norton.
21.
"Official Transcript Proceedings before the Supreme Court of the United States." Case No. 85-1513, Title: Edwin W. Edwards, Etc., et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard, et al. (10 December 1986).
22.
Overton, William R. [1982] 1985. Memorandum opinion of United States District Judge William R. Overton in McLean v. Arkansas, 5 January 1982 In Creationism on trial, edited by Langdon Gilkey, 266-95. New York: Harper & Row.
