Bryan Leonard, a PhD candidate in science education at Ohio State University (OSU), was scheduled to defend his thesis, which pits evolutionary science against intelligent design, on June 6. But then faculty members found out that Leonard's committee did not include any faculty member from his own division of science education. This situation is a violation of school policy, according to Earle Holland, director of research communications at OSU. Leonard's thesis advisor postponed the defense.

The three-member committee consisted of Leonard's advisor, Paul Post, who specializes in technology education, entomologist Glen Needham, and b i o c h e m i s t and human nutritionist Robert DiSilvestro. Neither Needham nor DiSilvestro was available for comment, but both have previously defended intelligent design/creationist arguments. Joan Herbers, an evolutionary biologist and also dean of biology sciences, is now involved with the committee. She agreed to serve as thesis ombudsperson after the previous holder of that position, an assistant professor in French and Italian, withdrew.

Copies of Leonard's thesis have not been made public, but some clues may be found in his testimony before the Kansas State Department of Education's May hearings on teaching evolution: "When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time?" "What empirical, cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs?" Leonard, also a biology teacher at Hilliard Davidson High School in Hilliard, Ohio, surveyed students and found that "out of 350 students who responded to the [survey], 312 students (89%) stated they would be more interested in learning the scientific information supporting and challenging macroevolution."

His testimony also included his students' remarks regarding whether evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design. One anonymous student wrote: "I was given information twice on the subject concerning evolution instead of just once," while another stated "I liked it [the lesson] because I was not forced to believe one certain thing, but I could choose for myself." Leonard declined to be interviewed.

The subject of Leonard's thesis has already drawn the ire of three OSU faculty members. "His dissertation presents evidence that he has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this fundamental principle of biology [evolution]," the faculty members wrote in a letter to Carole Anderson, the interim dean of OSU's graduate school, earlier this month. "As such, it involves deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical."

One of the letter's authors, Steve Rissing, an OSU evolutionary biologist, wouldn't say much about the case, but he says that in writing the letter, he was "fulfilling the responsibilities as a faculty member." Noting his own Christian beliefs, Rissing argues that intelligent design is "a brand of evangelicalism that has to have a personified enemy. It's unfortunate."

Lynn Elfner, CEO of the Ohio Academy of Science, says the Academy had been aware of Leonard's thesis for years. "The members initially on the committee are not qualified to judge science. They are avowed creationists." Elfner says it's a case of "using science if it fits ideology."