IN an unusual and refreshing article in this journal, Flannery (1989) made a plea for introducing a more "human" side to our biology teaching. She correctly identified how the use of personal examples and even opinion invigorated the class, focused the point, and strengthened the instruction. She noted, however, how personal revelation by a teacher is a "tricky business" and how such exposure made her uncomfortable. I considered her article a courageous one, not particularly because it introduced new ideas, but because she dared to talk about something every teacher knows to a greater or lesser extent-that how we teach is often as important as what we teach. The article was also one of several that have appeared in recent years with clear calls for honesty, not only in the teaching of science, but in science itself. In an attempt to expand this concept, I would suggest that not only are honesty and self-exposure (I would say vulnerability) appropriate and necessary for good teaching, but that they lead to a corollary. When a teacher allows his or her own values to be exposed, the teacher becomes, to a certain extent, a value model. Furthermore, if the teacher describes the process of his or her own values clarification, the process itself becomes instructive to students. Kormandy (1990) has suggested using the "Socratic" method of guiding students through difficult ethical issues. I contend that this approach is appropriate, but that it requires some degree of self-exposure by the teacher. Esbenshade (1993) suggests aiding students in conflict about science and religion by indicating our own positions and how they were reached. It is even possible to use another person's struggle with values as an instructional tool. Hendrick (1991) presents an extensive case study of the life and work of Louis Pasteur. He suggests that a teacher could use historical perspective to show how science and scientists are shaped by forces and factors around them (and decisions based on those) and that scientists are products of value systems they adopt. About this time your eyes will probably shift to the biographic information for this article and, upon seeing the author's affiliation with a school whose name includes "Christian," say to yourself, "Oh no, here goes some religious nut trying to say we need to coerce students to be conservative Christians." Not so. My plea is for honesty. I contend that it is impossible to teach biology (or anything else) without displaying and imparting values of some kind. We may only subtly indicate racial or sexual favoritism, attitudes toward beauty, or respect (even reverence) or irrespect for life, but the students will not miss the indicators. Overhearing student conversations in the hallways clearly shows how students learn far more about us than the subject matter we teach. One may choose to ignore this part of our impact on students, but it is naive to deny its existence.