Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 821–834 | Cite as

NGSS, disposability, and the ambivalence of science in/under neoliberalism

  • Matthew Weinstein
Original Paper


This paper explores the ambivalence of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and its Framework towards neoliberal governance. The paper examines the ways that the NGSS serves as a mechanism within neoliberal governance: in its production of disposable populations through testing and through the infusion of engineering throughout the NGSS to resolve social problems through technical fixes. However, the NGSS, like earlier standards, is reactionary to forces diminishing the power of institutional science (e.g., the AAAS) including neoliberal prioritizing market value over evidence. The NGSS explicitly takes on neoliberal junk science such as the anti-global-warming Heartland Institute.


Biopolitics Standardization NGSS Neoliberalism Resistance Disposability Ethics 


  1. Achieve, I. (2014). Next generation science standards. Retrieved December 28, 2014, from
  2. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2(2), 1–24. doi: 10.1215/08992363-2-2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203803301.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, P. (2014). Cultural dimensions of an equity strategy for the next generation science standards: Implementing models of hope and possibility. In Paper presented at the American Anthropology Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Bidwell, A. (2014). Climate change debate: Coming soon to a school near you. U.S. News & World Report.Google Scholar
  9. Bruder, J. (2014). The end of retirement: When you can’t afford to stop working. Harpers, 28–36.Google Scholar
  10. Charette, R. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth. IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved December 28, 2014, from
  11. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Health, E. A. W. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved December 28, 2014, from
  13. Editor. (2014). Prison nation. Retrieved December 28, 2014, from
  14. Fisher, J. A. (2009). Medical research for hire: The political economy of pharmaceutical clinical trials. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fortun, K. (2014). From Latour to late industrialism. Hau Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 309–329. doi: 10.14318/hau4.1.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M., Senellart, M., & de France, Collège. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Giroux, H. A. (2009). Youth in a suspect society: Democracy or disposability? (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230100565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates. doi: 10.4324/9781410613462.Google Scholar
  20. Goonitalke, S. (1993). Modern science and the periphery: The characteristics of dependent knowledge. In S. Harding (Ed.), The racial economy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. doi: 10.7591/9781501712951.Google Scholar
  23. Harris, R., & Benincasa, R. (2014). U.S. science suffering from booms and busts in funding. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
  24. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Helms, R. (Ed.). (2002). Guinea pig zero: An anthology of the journal for human research subjects. New Orleans: Garrett County Press.Google Scholar
  26. Herzfeld, M. (1992). The social production of indifference: Exploring the symbolic roots of Western bureaucracy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, N. (2007a). Disaster capitalism: The new economy of catastrophe. Harper’s Magazine, 47–58.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, N. (2007b). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism (1st ed.). New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  29. Krugman, P. (1996). A country is not a company. Harvard Business Review, 40–50.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 141–170). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Layton, L. (2014). How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core Revolution. Politics, Retrieved December 28, 2014, from
  32. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  34. Noble, D. F. (1977). America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism (p. xxvi). New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  35. No Child Left Behind [NCLB], Pub. L. No. 107–110 §115, 1425 Stat. (2002).Google Scholar
  36. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (1st ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  37. Petryna, A., Lakoff, A., & Kleinman, A. (2006). Global pharmaceuticals: Ethics, markets, practices. Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822387916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pierce, C. (2013). Education in the age of biocapitalism: Optimizing educational life for a flat world (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137027832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott, D. (2010). The technological fix criticisms and the agricultural biotechnology debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 207–226. doi: 10.1007/s10806-010-9253-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1984). A nation at risk. Cambridge: USA Research.Google Scholar
  42. Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University. doi: 10.1215/9780822392255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinstein, M. (2001). Guinea pig pedagogy: Critiquing and re-embodying science/education from other standpoints. In A. Barton & M. Osborne (Eds.), Teaching science in diverse settings: Marginalized discourses and classroom practices. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Education ProgramUniversity of WashingtonTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations