Propiedades físicas y mecánicas a analizar

A science resource company, Carolina Biological Supply Company (http://www. carolina.com/) has partnered with Yorktown to distribute interesting lesson plans and activities for investigating Glofish behaviors. One lesson (Yorktown Technologies 2009a) “It’s Cold Outside: Exploring the Effects of Temperature on GloFish® Activity” provides background information for the teacher asserting that the GloFish is a genetically modified zebrafish and so it has the same range of habitats as the wild type. Without referencing their sources, Yorktown’s lesson concludes for teachers and students that scientists have determined zebrafish are unable to survive in North American waterways. This becomes the “correct answer” that learners are supposed to derive from these lessons and associated activities. In the Possible Answers to Discussion Questions, Yorktown indicates that the GloFish or wild-type zebrafish would not be able to inhabit lakes and streams in North America, suggesting, “No, lake and stream temperatures in North America would

109 8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education

be too cold for them to be able survive. This is the reason that zebrafish do not populate waterways in North America” (2009a, n.p., emphasis original). This answer is compelling but does not reveal the whole picture. It is essentially based on what we now know about zebrafish which are released into US waterways. This idea is less plausible when we consider all of the land extending northward from the Columbia-Panama border, Central America, Mexico, the Islands of the Caribbean Sea, the Artic Archipelago, Canada, and Greenland as part of what constitutes the landmasses of North America. In other words, there is a sense of ethnocentrism that privileges our nation but not others when GloFish have the potential to be released into ecosystems where they may survive. We will see that this issue becomes more important later as we discuss recent data.

Another “correct” answer for Carolina and Yorktown has to do with “Biotech Animals: Science, Benefits, Risk & Public Sentiment” (Yorktown Technologies 2009b). The objective of this lesson is to explore the enhancements that can be made to animals and concerns associated with GMOs. The focus of the lesson is clearly on the advantages of GMOs and resolving concerns for the GloFish. Subsequently, any discussion of ethical issues is conspicuously absent; one wonders how students may possibly construct informed positions on such a controversial socioscientific issue. Indeed, if teachers were to follow Carolina’s lessons exactly as written, students would be questioning the legitimacy of their values and beliefs instead of embracing them as part of the process. The message conveyed is that personal values are inferior to the progress of science; science clearly trumps all other human knowledge and experiences. For instance, one worksheet question asks students whether arguments against GMOs are scientific or ideological. The implication of this question is that if the argument is ideological (which is how almost all ethics are warranted by philosophers) it is shortsighted. Another asks what strategies are good for separating fact from fiction (again referring to the ideo- logical) as if GloFish have been “proven” to be ecologically safe. An additional question asks what steps have been taken to ensure GloFish are safe. But again, “safe” is a term constrained by what is implied by “North America.”

Another aspect of this issue, which may not be discussed in classrooms, is whether the FDA should be regulating GloFish. Currently, the FDA classifies trans- genes as new “drugs.” With this guidance, every new GMO will be evaluated as if it contains a new drug (rDNA), which means that the general public will have to trust the regulatory authority of the FDA which may not be appropriate for geneti- cally modified species. With new drug applications and assessments, the FDA oper- ates behind closed doors to protect application details by federal law. This process protects highly competitive pharmaceutical companies who are competing for pat- ents and market rights. It seems disingenuous that the public has access to these controversial decisions only after decisions have been determined. Not regulating something is a political charge to avoid sharing responsibility. But if the sales of ornamental fish are not federally regulated, then who will be responsible?

One might argue that the general public is responsible for what they purchase (i.e., purchasing power) and that a public “vote” is a way of regulating things. Perhaps so. But purchasing power is more relevant when people are educated to be

110 M.P. Mueller and D.L. Zeidler informed consumers of science and technology, especially when “informed” means schooling will adequately engage students in an increasing awareness and under- standing of the underlying assumptions inadvertently perpetuated and deeply embedded in issues such as the GloFish (Mueller 2009). Informed in this sense means being able to exercise socioscientific reasoning. It also assumes a functional degree of scientific literacy. In contrast, the reality is that our educational system often fails students in this regard. It teaches them to be complacent, to have unerr- ing faith in science and technology, and to trust governments to protect consumers. But any degree of trust becomes suspect when the US government overlooks the impacts of GloFish on ecosystems in other countries beyond the USA. Normative or criterion-referenced tests further complicate these imperatives to educate students for/as empowered as scientists and other community professionals by reducing informed decision-making to a series of tested concepts. In contrast, SSI and socioscientific reasoning offer more promise and opportunity for digging in deeper and for better informing people’s perspectives and enabling actions, where Yorktown Technologies and Carolina Biological fail to provide adequate science education. Now let us explore whether GloFish is a socioscientific issue.