Intelligent donation?

Why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave more than $10 million to the Discovery Institute, champions of "intelligent design."

Topics:

Intelligent donation?

No one could deny that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation cares deeply about science. The foundation, by far the nation’s largest philanthropic organization, donates hundreds of millions of dollars every year to promising medical research, including vaccines and treatments for malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis. The foundation also cares about education. In 2004, it donated $720 million to improve American schools. Both Bill and Melinda Gates themselves frequently argue for schools to ramp up their science and math programs to create a competitive American workforce for the future.

It comes as no small surprise, then, to learn that during the past five years the Gates Foundation has pledged more than $10 million to the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that is leading the charge to bring “intelligent design” to the masses. Advocates of I.D. say Darwin’s theory of evolution is flawed and that certain complex biological features — such as, for instance, the human eye — point to the presence of a “designer” at the source of creation. The scientific establishment roundly rejects I.D. They say it represents a back door through which religious views are being snuck into public education. Due to the Discovery Institute, I.D. is popping up in school districts all over the country, fueling a renewed controversy over evolution that has even made its way into national politics. George W. Bush recently espoused Discovery’s views by urging teachers to make sure “both sides” — that is, I.D. as well as evolution — are “properly taught.”



The Gates Foundation responds that it hasn’t abandoned science to back intelligent design. Greg Shaw, Pacific Northwest director, explains that the grant to Discovery underwrites the institute’s “Cascadia Project,” which strictly focuses on transportation in the Northwest. The Discovery Web site lists several program goals, including financing of high-speed passenger rail systems and reduction of automobile congestion in the Cascadia region, which encompasses Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. (The Gates Foundation, which is based in Seattle, gives a small slice of its money — about $40 million in 2004 — to groups that aim to improve life in the Pacific Northwest.) Poor transportation is a key problem for low-income families, Shaw says, and “when Cascadia came to the Foundation, there was a sense that there had not been a regional approach to studying transportation. Cascadia’s plan to solve the transportation problem “was very much a bipartisan state, local and regional approach with a variety of states and counties and mayors.” He didn’t know if people at the foundation were aware of Discovery’s I.D. work at the time they decided to fund Cascadia. “It is absolutely true that we care about sound science as it pertains to saving lives,” he says. “The question of intelligent design is not something that we have ever considered. It’s not something that we fund.”

The Gates Foundation first gave money to Discovery in 2000 — $1 million for the Cascadia initiative. In 2003, the foundation promised $9.35 million, with $1.1 million distributed annually for the first three years, and the rest dispersed according to Cascadia’s progress. Only since Discovery stepped up its promotion of intelligent design has public scrutiny of the conservative think tank increased. Time magazine recently noted the Gates affiliation with Discovery, as did Jodi Wilgoren in her profile of Discovery in Sunday’s New York Times. Wilgoren pointed out that an annual $50,000 of the grant goes to the salary of Bruce Chapman, the founder and president of Discovery. Chapman oversees the entire institute — including both the Gates-funded Cascadia work and the center’s promotion of intelligent design. But Shaw says the foundation money for Chapman “is for the time he’s putting in on the transportation project,” not for the work he’s doing on I.D.

Several biologists and representatives at organizations that promote evolution education say they have no problem with the Gates grants to Cascadia. “I’ve been getting so many e-mails from people who are frothing at the mouth at this,” says Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, whose tag line is “Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.” “There is confusion about, ‘What is Bill Gates doing supporting intelligent design?’” As far as Scott is concerned, the Microsoft chairman is not funding intelligent design.

Even if the Gates money doesn’t directly fund Discovery’s I.D. work, the grant has created an image problem for the foundation. “Its support of the Discovery Institute is not commendable because of the murky situation created,” wrote Francisco Ayala, a biologist at the University of California at Irvine, in an e-mail. “Many people will not notice that Gates’ support is restricted to one particular project … I am reminded of the saying, ‘The wife of Caesar not only should be chaste, but also appear to be so.’” Ayala raises an intriguing question: As the Discovery Institute becomes increasingly associated with intelligent design, does the Gates foundation worry that its own good name might get tied up in the political storm? “It’s a good question,” Shaw says. “When a grantee’s work is so much associated with something not related to the work you are funding, how does that affect your grant? I don’t know the answer to that. It’s something we are going to have to look at.”

Other foundations that have given money to Discovery also seem unsure whether the donations may tarnish their image. Still, all insist the money they gave to Discovery does not go to fund Discovery’s intelligent design work. Alberto Canal, a spokesman for the Verizon Foundation, says the five-year, $74,000 grant the foundation made to Discovery in 2001 was earmarked for a lecture series focusing on technology. “We weren’t looking at what some of the other centers [at Discovery] were doing,” Canal says. Discovery’s lecture series focused on “technology and how it fits into public policy,” areas that are in line with Verizon’s goals. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation gave $200,000 to Discovery’s Cascadia center in 2002. Chris DeCardy, a spokesman, says that “we now know they focus on intelligent design, and with the investments we make in science, it’s not an area we would support.” A spokesman for the the Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation — affiliated with the Weyerhaeuser forest-products company — says that the foundation’s several donations (many more than $20,000) over the past five years also went to fund Cascadia work, not intelligent design.

The Gates Foundation’s grants to Discovery are not the only connection Microsoft has to the institute. Mark Ryland, who heads the institute’s Washington office, is a former Microsoft executive, and a Microsoft employee named Michael Martin is a current member of Discovery’s board. A spokeswoman for Microsoft says that Martin served on the board in his personal capacity, not as a representative of the company. In an e-mail, Keith Pennock, the program administrator of Discovery’s Center for Science and Culture (which runs its intelligent design work), concurs. “Mr. Martin is a member of the Discovery Board in his individual capacity and does not represent the Microsoft Corporation. Does Microsoft support Discovery’s work on intelligent design? No.”

Pennock ends his e-mail to Salon with criticism over the inquiry into the groups that finance Discovery’s work. “Finally, I have been asked to advise you that it is unseemly for people who dislike one program at a think tank (or a university — or an on-line magazine, for that matter) to try to pressure funders of other programs there,” he writes. “It is illiberal and contrary to the spirit of free speech.”

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>