Science & Education

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 285–302 | Cite as

Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Socio-Scientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a Scientifically Literate Citizenry

  • Norman G. Lederman
  • Allison Antink
  • Stephen Bartos
Article

Abstract

The primary focus of this article is to illustrate how teachers can use contemporary socio-scientific issues to teach students about nature of scientific knowledge as well as address the science subject matter embedded in the issues. The article provides an initial discussion about the various aspects of nature of scientific knowledge that are addressed. It is important to remember that the aspects of nature of scientific knowledge are not considered to be a comprehensive list, but rather a set of important ideas for adolescent students to learn about scientific knowledge. These ideas have been advocated as important for secondary students by numerous reform documents internationally. Then, several examples are used to illustrate how genetically based socio-scientific issues can be used by teachers to improve students’ understandings of the discussed aspects of nature of scientific knowledge.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education, Dordrecht (pp. 41–62). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (1999). Sex selection of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertility and Sterility, 72(4), 595–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (2001). Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 75(5), 861–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Center of Unified Science Education. (1974). The dimensions of scientific literacy. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  10. Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frankel, M., & Chapman, A. (2000). Human inheritable genetic modifications: Assessing scientific, ethical, religious, and policy issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science report. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  13. Gould, S. J., & Eldridge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and model of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151.Google Scholar
  14. Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). Jones: Perganon Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klopfer, L. E., & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24(6), 264–293.Google Scholar
  17. Klug, W. S., & Cummings, M. R. (1991). Concepts of genetics. New York, USA: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Koeppel, D. (2008). Banana: The fate of the fruit that changed the world. New York: Hudson Street Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Matthews, Q. L., & Curiel, D. T. (2007). Gene therapy: Human germline genetic modifications—assessing the scientific, socioethical, and religious issues. Southern Medical Journal, 100(1), 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: An NSTA position statement.Google Scholar
  26. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. R. (1988). The open universe: An argument for indeterminism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Rasko, J. E. J., & Jolly, D. J. (2006). The science of inheritable genetic modification. In J. Rasko, G. O’Sullivan, & R. Ankeny (Eds.), The Ethics of inheritable genetic modification: A dividing line? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(5), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott, J. A. (2006). Inheritable genetic modification: clinical applications and genetic counseling considerations. In J. Rasko, G. O’Sullivan, & R. Ankeny (Eds.), The ethics of inheritable genetic modification: A dividing line?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sermon, K., Van Steirteghem, A., & Liebaers, I. (2004). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet, 363, 1633–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Showalter, V. (1975). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy, Prism II, 2(3–4), 1–6.Google Scholar
  36. Singer, P. (2003). Shopping at the genetic supermarket. In S. Y. Song, Y. M. Koo, & D. R. J. Macer (Eds.), Asian bioethics in the 21st century (pp. 143–156). Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute.Google Scholar
  37. US Grains Council. (2010). General format. Retrieved from http://www.grains.org/corn.
  38. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norman G. Lederman
    • 1
  • Allison Antink
    • 1
  • Stephen Bartos
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematics and Science EducationIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations