Socioscientific Issues (SSI)
Michael P. Mueller and Dana L. Zeidler
D.J. Tippins et al. (eds.), Cultural Studies and Environmentalism,
Cultural Studies of Science Education Vol. 3, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_8, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
M.P. Mueller University of Georgia D.L. Zeidler
106 M.P. Mueller and D.L. Zeidler Withstanding social justice scholars who emphasize more than human-centric concerns, a review of the literature in science education will often reveal a concern for nature while the implications of that concern remains limited to humans. By contrast, we suggest that social justice is better served and characterized by socio- scientific movements (Zeidler and Sadler 2008) when the welfare of ecosystems becomes inseparable from communities. Ecojustice, under our view, is an enlarged conceptualization of how this idea is cultivated through SSI.
The second premise of this chapter rests on the idea that socioscientific issues can provide a contextualized learning environment for understanding the complex- ity of living and nonliving interrelationships, both in the classroom and in natural settings. Ironically, many of the teaching methods employed within the SSI frame- work are not separate from what occurs within professional science, yet science education tends to lag behind the times and schooling is slow to change. With the emerging SSI movement, however, students debate, discuss, argue, and reflect on the pros, cons, and the many shades of grey and green on environmental issues such as the impacts of local food movements or renewable fuels. Unfortunately, many of these issues are taken for granted by society as inherently good or bad, when these issues almost always require a more nuanced analysis. Similar to scientists working within the professional sector, youth are not limited to scientific evidence when constructing solutions to ethical, political, and social dilemmas. They discuss previ- ous knowledge and experiences, beliefs and values, and philosophical ideals, and wrestle with their actual decisions.
Our third point is that the literature shows that socioscientific issues cultivate moral–ethical reasoning and the development of character, which should be part of school sciences (Fowler et al. 2009). A large part of SSI pedagogy is responsible for guiding students through epistemic and ontological or character development. This pedagogy fosters what is termed socioscientific reasoning (Sadler et al. 2007). Socioscientific reasoning entails the recognition of complexity inherent in SSI, the consideration of issues from pluralistic perspectives, the recognition of ongoing inquiry relative to SSI, and the demonstration of a healthy degree of skepticism when confronted with evidence and data. This type of reasoning runs the gamut of rationalistic, intuitive, and emotive thought and evokes imaginative thinking to navigate through the landscape of ill-structured problems (Sadler and Zeidler 2005). Socioscientific reasoning specifically involves wrestling with morals and ethics, and personal views, that is, fundamental beliefs and values (Fowler, Sodler and Zeidler 2009). Moral–ethical reasoning of this nature has not always been rec- ognized as part of how students learn in science education. But this oversight does not negate the fact that students’ shared values are partly shaped by the social norms of people who lived during a particular time, inculcated as metaphors, encoded and reproduced intergenerationally.
As a context for deeper consideration and analysis, this chapter will elaborate on significant moral dilemmas facing schools today, and discuss how teachers should be prepared to deal with the topic of genetically modified species. With increasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) such as Yorktown Technologies’ patented GloFishTM making their way into classroom laboratories, socioscientific issues and
107 8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education
reasoning can better serve as an effective strategy for analyzing the moral and sci- entific concepts embedded within this issue, developing a sense of character, and considering obligations to life proper and the physical world we inhabit. We will describe this idea hereafter as “functional scientific literacy” (Zeidler et al. 2005). Two assumptions follow: Functional scientific literacy in the pedagogical context of science education includes moral–ethical inquiry as a part of the larger process of becoming informed and participating more fully in community decisions, and school science is a microcosm of the larger worldly domain (Table 1).
GloFish
One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish; black fish, blue fish, old fish, new fish (Dr. Seuss 1960).
Science teachers have used aquarium fish for decades in the classroom to engage students in lab studies of fish behavior and to cultivate scientific understandings. A popular fish for scientific studies is the zebrafish (Danio rerio) or zebra danio because this fish is hardy in aquaria habitats and fairly inexpensive. This fish is also important for and used extensively in scientific research. The zebrafish is a tropical species native to South Asia, the streams of the southeastern Himalayan region, native to streams, canals, ditches, ponds, and lentic waterways in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar. This fish has been introduced to Japan, Canada, Australia and the USA. The zebrafish is also noted in countries where it is not native, perhaps due to people releasing them from aquaria. In the USA, the zebrafish is cultivated in commercial fish farming operations in Florida. More recently, scientists at the National University of Singapore, Singapore, developed a line of GMO or transgenic zebrafish as an ornamental pet (Gong et al. 2003). Originally the “GloFish” was developed to glow red in the presence of certain environmental pollutants, therefore serving as a biological sensor that is rapid, mobile, highly visible, biodegradable, and regenerative. The Starfire Red® zebrafish expresses a red fluorescent protein from a sea anemone. This glow-red zebra danio was immediately called one of the “Coolest Inventions of 2003” by
Time Magazine. By December 11, 2003, Yorktown Technologies, L.P. had
announced that it would market GloFish in the USA at the beginning of 2004 with- out oversight and regulation from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or any other federal agency.
Table 1 Presuppositions of ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues
Ecojustice Ethics through Socioscientific Issues and Reasoning (i.e., Functional Scientific Literacy)
• SSI advances science education beyond the limits of social justice • Socioscientific inquiry is better aligned with the professional sector • Science rarely exists apart from ethical, political, and social judgments
108 M.P. Mueller and D.L. Zeidler The FDA provided the following online statement on December 9, 2003: Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish (n.p.).
The fact that GMO pets are not federally regulated nor have undergone sustained research study for much time explains why California, Canada, and the European Union banned sales of GloFish respectively. Despite the ban, Glofish have been located in California and European countries as consumers purchase them elsewhere and import pets (Bratspies 2005). What follows is the possibility of importing them to South Asia, which may have unintended environmental consequences not yet known. These consequences have been de-emphasized or ignored in light of refut- ing possible environmental consequences for ecosystems where GloFish are legally distributed (see letters of no harm from scientists at http://www.glofish.com).
Yorktown Technologies’ mantra is “Experience the GloTM” which has teachers and parents in a glaring trance, according to Georgia pet store owners (M.P. Mueller, 2009, personal observation). As more science teachers purchase GloFish for their classrooms there are very few conversations about the ethical, political, and social implications for society. Pet store owners are not required to say anything about whether the GloFish is a “natural” or genetically engineered pet. However, some pet store employees have started to disclose information about GloFish to customers in order to reduce the number of returned fish when customers become upset. GloFish, having become “cool new inventions,” are now available in a mosaic of other colors such as Electric Green® and Sunburst Orange®. What edu- cators and their students may overlook is that genetically modified pets are more “socioscientifically” sophisticated than what meets the eye.