Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Controversies in Science

To Teach or Not to Teach?

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Controversies in science are an essential feature of scientific practice: defined here as current problems that are unresolved because there are no accepted procedures by which they can be resolved or there are differing assumptions that affect the interpretation of evidence. Although there has been much attention in science education literature addressing socio-scientific and historical controversies in science, less has been paid to the teaching of contemporary scientific controversies. Using semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 teachers at different career stages in England, we investigated teachers’ social representations of scientific controversies using the discourse of the collective subject (DSC). We found a lack of controversy in teachers’ responses. Whilst scientific controversies were seen as an essential feature of how science works, they were not viewed as essential in science education and were represented as a distraction and dealt with informally, outside the planned curriculum and in response to students’ questions. Subject knowledge was considered a barrier. We argue that teaching about carefully selected scientific controversies has the potential to contribute to teachers’ and students’ understandings of science and the nature of science. There are perceived to be few opportunities for teachers to exercise this in the English context. We suggest how the collective subject discourses might be used to open up a discussion about teaching controversies in professional learning situations. Materials to stimulate discussion of scientific controversies could be useful in future curriculum development in science, but these would need to address the barriers of subject knowledge, access to literature and conflict with assessment-related priorities and a perceived need to advocate for trust in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, for example the work of the Institute for Research in Schools http://www.researchinschools.org/staff.html and the Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education 2018, Volume 9, No. 1. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/jaste/issue/view/1990/showToc

References

  • Ball, P. (2017). The group 3 dilemma, Chemistry World https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/the-group-3-dilemma/3007080.article.  Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Braga, M., Guerra, A., & Reis, J. C. (2012). The role of historical-philosophical controversies in teaching sciences: the debate between Biot and Ampère. Science & Education, 21(6), 921–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Educational Research Association [BERA] (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fourth edition, London. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethicalguidelines-for-educational-research-2018. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: an intimate but complicate relationship. In Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 423–441). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, S. (2018). Superluminal neutrinos: an OPERA in three acts. https://www.stx.ox.ac.uk/physics-controversies-past-and-present-happ-centre-dr-susan-cartwright.  Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Dascal, M. (1998). The study of controversies and the theory and history of science. Science in Context, 11(2), 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Hosson, C., & Kaminski, W. (2007). Historical controversy as an educational tool: evaluating elements of a teaching–learning sequence conducted with the text “dialogue on the ways that vision operates”. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 617–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education (2013). Statutory guidance national curriculum in England: science programmes of study https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study.  Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Department for Education (2016).Qualifications reform: resources for teachers. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/qualifications-reform-resources-for-teachers.  Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (1997). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestein, S. (2012). Ignorance: how it drives science. New York: OUP.

  • Garcia-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Diaz, J. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26, 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godlee, F., Smith, J., & Marcovitch, H. (2011) Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ, 342 (jan05 1), c7452-c7452

  • García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26(1), 65–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harker, D. (2015).  Creating scientific controversies: uncertainty and bias in science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, J. (2002). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science (2nd ed., Studies in European history (Basingstoke, England)). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höijer, B. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, A., & Coll, R. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: the mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B. (2014). When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Understanding of Science, 23(2), 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2007). The valuing of technology in the science curriculum: biotechnology as an example. In: Corrigan, D. Dillon, J. & Gunstone, R. (Eds.), The Re-Emergence of Values in Science Education, Ch. 7. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1998). From the world of science to the world of research? Science, 280(5361), 208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1141–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, & Thuret. (2018). Adult human hippocampal neurogenesis: controversy and evidence. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 24(6), 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre, F., & Lefevre, A. M. C. (2007). The collective subject that speaks. Interface 3. Translated from Lefevre, F. & Lefevre, A.M.C. (2006). Interface, 10(20), 517–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre, F., & Lefevre, A. M. C. (2014). Discourse of the collective subject: social representatons and communication interventions. Text content Nursing, Florianopolis, 23(2), 502–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons. London: The Wellcome Trust.

  • Martínez-Sierra, G., Valle-Zequeida, M., Miranda-Tirado, M., & Dolores-Flores, C. (2016). Social representations of high school students about mathematics assessment. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 16(3), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. (2003). Teaching controversial issues in citizenship education. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick, & J. Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenship (pp. 149–160). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, E. (1987). Scientific controversy and its termination. In H. T. Engelhardt Jr., H. T. Engelhardt, & A. L. Caplan (Eds.), Scientific controversies: case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2009). From ‘cold’ science to ‘hot’ research: the texture of controversy. CSI Working Papers Series. Series 016, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.

  • Millstone, E., & Van Zwanenberg, P. (2000). A crisis of trust: for science, scientists or for institutions? Nature Medicine, 6(12), 1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change (European monographs in social psychology ; 10). London: Published in cooperation with European Association of Experimental Social Psychology by Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici, S., & Duveen, G. (2000). Social representations: explorations in social psychology. Cambridge: Polity P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. (2002). Improving learning by discussing controversies in 20th century physics. Physics Education, 37(1), 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M., & Rodríguez, M. (2005). The oil drop experiment: do physical chemistry textbooks refer to its controversial nature? Science & Education, 14(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: a focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. C. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories (Science & technology education library ; v. 1). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2007). Data do not speak for themselves: the role of data in scientific controversies. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 44(3), 113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2012). Trouble in the periodic table. Education in Chemistry, 49(1), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E. (2016). A tale of seven scientists and a new philosophy of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Shayer, M. (1999). Cognitive acceleration through science education II: Its effects and scope. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 883–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, T. C., Medeiros, P. M., Araújo, T. A. S., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2010). Northeastern Brazilian students’ representations of Atlantic Forest fragments. Environment, Development and Sustaintainability, 12(2), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva-Costa, A., Araújo, M. M., Nagai, R., & Fischer, F. M. (2010). Environmental and organizational conditions for napping during night work: a qualitative study among nursing professionals. Sleep Science, 3(1), 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., & Joffe, H. (2013). How the public engages with global warming: a social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science, 22(1), 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The editors of the Lancet. (2010). Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 375, 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venturini, T., Ricci, D., & Mauri, M. (2015). Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues, 31(3), 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigeta, S., Hachul, H., Tufik, S., & De Oliveira, E. (2012). Sleep in postmenopausal women. Qualitative Health Research, 22(4), 466–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S, Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Marková, I., Duveen, G. and Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations [online]. London: LSE Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2640. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.

  • Wazeck, M. (2013). Marginalization processes in science: the controversy about the theory of relativity in the 1920s. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 163–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yacek, D. (2018). Thinking controversially: the psychological condition for teaching controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaneva, A., Rabesandratana, T. M., & Greiner, B. (2009). Staging scientific controversies: a gallery test on science museums’ interactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 18(1), 79–90.

  • Ziman, J. (1994). The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: international perspectives on reform (pp. 21–31). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

    Lynda Dunlop

  2. Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Fernanda Veneu

Authors
  1. Lynda Dunlop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernanda Veneu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynda Dunlop.

Ethics declarations

The research was conducted in accordance with approvals gained from our appropriate institutional ethics committee, in line with BERA’s (2018) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, including the principles of voluntary informed consent, right to withdraw, privacy and minimisation of harm.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dunlop, L., Veneu, F. Controversies in Science. Sci & Educ 28, 689–710 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00048-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00048-y

Search

Navigation