The Kansas State Board of Education's decision to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in the science room as an alternative theory to Darwin has created ripples through the scientific community. Scientists became infuriated by the further decision to alter the definition of science as "no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." Using copyright, intellectual property and patent laws, the National Science Teacher's Association are withdrawing their consent for Kansas to teach using their materials. Effectively, Kansas may now teach ID and ID alone.

This is not the first use of patents to stymie intellectual growth. SIPPI and AAAS conducted a survey showing the effects of patents on scientific progress. Of the 40% indicating their work was affected, 50% changed their studies and 28% abandoned projects altogether.

This is but a passing event in a cosmic timeline, such that Kansas' decision will not mar the face of science. But it raises new questions. Should science include the supernatural and paranormal as both fact and mainstream? With regards to science holding itself back through patents, should the use of intellectual property rights be allowed to continue marching under capitalist motivates and political agendas? The quenching of either facet is a step toward communizing or socializing American science.