Learning to argue as a biotechnologist: disprivileging opposition to genetically modified food
- 1.1k Downloads
In the public discussion of genetically modified (GM) food the representations of science as a social good, conducted in the public interest to solve major problems are being subjected to intense scrutiny and questioning. Scientists working in these areas have been seen to struggle for the position of science in society. However few in situ studies of how the debate about science appears in learning situations at the university level have been undertaken. In the present study an introductory course in biotechnology was observed during one semester, lectures and small group supervision concerning GM food were videotaped and student’s reports on the issue were collected. The ethnographic approach to Discourse analysis was conducted by means of a set of carefully selected and representative observations of how a group of students learn to argue and appropriate views held in the Discourse they are enculturated into. While socio-scientific issues (SSIs) are often associated with achieving scientific literacy in terms of “informed decisions” involving “rational thought and Discourse” this study shows that SSI in practice, in the context studied here, is primarily concerned with using scientific language to privilege professional understandings of GMOs and discredit public worries and concerns. Scientific claims were privileged over ethical, economical and political claims which were either made irrelevant or rebutted. The students were seen to appropriate a Discourse model held in the biotechnological community that public opposition towards GMO is due to “insufficient knowledge”. The present study offers insights into biotechnology students’ decision making regarding socio-scientific issues, while also demonstrating the utility of Discourse analysis for understanding learning in this university context. Implications for reflection on the institutional Discourse of science and teaching of controversial issues in science are drawn and the study contributes to the investigation of claims of scientific literacy coupled to SSIs and argumentation
KeywordsDiscourse analysis Socio-scientific issues Higher education Genetically modified organisms (GMO)
We are very deeply indebted to the professor and the students at the biotechnology course for allowing us to investigate the activities in which they were engaged. We would also like to thank The Hasselblad Foundation for financing this research. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions made on earlier drafts of this paper by Mark Elam, Maria Andrée, Erik Knain and Per-Olof Wickman.
- Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
- Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of Socio-scientific issue. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11, 1–24.Google Scholar
- Charlesworth, M. (1995). Life among the scientists. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Eastwood, J. L., Schlegel, W. M., & Cook, K. L. (2011). Effects of an interdisciplinary on students′ reasoning with socio-scientific issues and perceptions of their learning experiences. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 89–126). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method (2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Gee, J. P., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.Google Scholar
- Jansson, S. et al. (2011). Kvasivetenskap hindrar ett hållbart jord- och skogsbruk. Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved March 01, 2012, from http://www.dn.se/debatt/kvasivetenskap-hindrar-ett-hallbart-jord-och- skogsbruk.
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1989). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (report No. IRL 89-0013). Paolo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Learning.Google Scholar
- Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Socio-cultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 296–316. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296:AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO reports, 2, 545–548. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.
- Moloney, M., et al. (2012). UK plant scientists call on Europe to change current laws and adopt science-based GM regulations. Retrieved August 31, 2012, from http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/changeeugmlegislation/signatures/page/1.
- Nestlé, M. (2003). Safe food: Bacteria, biotechnology, and bioterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Shiva, V., Emani, A., & Jafri, A. (1999). Globalization and threat to seed security. Case of transgenic cotton trials in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(10/11), 601–613.Google Scholar
- Stengers, I. (1999). For en demokratisering av vitenskapene. Oslo: Spartacus.Google Scholar
- Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socio-scientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4996-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar