【正文】 t an ancient civilization is enhanced not only by the expertise of the archeologistwho unearths the evidencebut ultimately by the expertise of biochemists, geologists, linguists, and even astronomers. By analyzing the hair, nails, blood and bones of mummified bodies, biochemists and forensic scientists can determine the life expectancy, general wellbeing, and mon causes of death of the population. These experts can also ensure the proper preservation of evidence found at the archeological site. A geologist can help identify the source and age of the materials used for tools, weapons, and structuresthereby enabling the anthropologist to extrapolate about the civilization39。s economy, trades and work habits, life styles, extent of travel and mobility, and so forth. Linguists are needed to interpret hieroglyphics and extrapolate from found fragments of writings. And an astronomer can help explain the layout of an ancient city as well as the design, structure and position of monuments, tombs, and templessince ancients often looked to the stars for guidance in building cities and structures. An even more striking example of how expertise in diverse fields is needed to advance knowledge involves the area of astronomy and space exploration. Significant advancements in our knowledge of the solar system and the universe require increasingly keen tools for observation and measurement. Telescope technology and the measurement of celestial distances, masses, volumes, and so forth, are the domain of astrophysicists. These advances also require increasingly sophisticated means of exploration. Manned and unmanned exploratory probes are designed by mechanical, electrical, and puter engineers. And to build and enable these technologies requires the acumen and savvy of business leaders, managers, and politicians. Even diplomats might play a roleinsofar as major space projects require international cooperative efforts among the world39。s scientists and governments. And ultimately it is our philosophers whose expertise helps provide meaning to what we learn about our universe. In sum, no area of intellectual inquiry operates in a vacuum. Because the sciences are inextricably related, to advance our knowledge in any one area we must understand the interplay among them all. Moreover, it is our nonscientists who make possible the science, and who bring meaning to what we learn from it. Issue 5 A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer. The speaker would prefer a national curriculum for all children up until college instead of allowing schools in different regions the freedom to decide on their own curricula. I agree insofar as some mon core curriculum would serve useful purposes for any nation. At the same time, however, individual states and munities should have some freedom to augment any such curriculum as they see fit。 otherwise, a nation39。s educational system might defeat its own purposes in the long term. A national core curriculum would be beneficial to a nation in a number of respects. First of all, by providing all children with fundamental skills and knowledge, a mon core curriculum would help ensure that our children grow up to bee reasonably informed, productive members of society. In addition, a mon core curriculum would provide a predictable foundation upon which college administrators and faculty could more easily build curricula and select course materials for freshmen that are neither below nor above their level of educational experience. Finally, a core curriculum would ensure that all schoolchildren are taught core values upon which any democratic society depends to thrive, and even survivevalues such as tolerance of others with different viewpoints, and respect for others. However, a mon curriculum that is also an exclusive one would pose certain problems, which might outweigh the benefits, noted above. First of all, on what basis would certain course work be included or excluded, and who would be the final decisionmaker? In all likelihood these decisions would be in the hands of federal legislators and regulators, who are likely to have their own quirky notions of what should and should not be taught to childrennotions that may or may not reflect those of most munities, schools, or parents. Besides, government officials are notoriously susceptible to influencepeddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of society39。s children in mind. Secondly, an official, federally sanctioned curriculum would facilitate the dissemination of propaganda and other dogma which because of its biased and onesided nature undermines the very purpose of true education: to enlighten. I can easily foresee the banning of certain text books, programs, and websites which provide information and perspectives that the government might wish to suppressas some sort of threat to its authority and power. Although this scenario might seem farfetched, these sorts of concerns are being raised already at the state level. Thirdly, the inflexible nature of a uniform national curriculum would preclude the inclusion of programs, courses, and materials that are primarily of regional or local significance. For example, California requires children at certain grade levels to learn about the history of particular ethnic groups who make up the state39。s diverse population. A national curriculum might not allow for this feature, and California39。s youngsters would be worse off as a result of their ignorance about the traditions, values, and cultural contributions of all the people whose citizenship they share. Finally, it seems to me that imposing a uniform national curriculum would serve to under