Skip to main content

Science Outside the Lab: Helping Graduate Students in Science and Engineering Understand the Complexities of Science Policy

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 23, pages 861–882 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Helping scientists and engineers challenge received assumptions about how science, engineering, and society relate is a critical cornerstone for macroethics education. Scientific and engineering research are frequently framed as first steps of a value-free linear model that inexorably leads to societal benefit. Social studies of science and assessments of scientific and engineering research speak to the need for a more critical approach to the noble intentions underlying these assumptions. “Science Outside the Lab” is a program designed to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science and engineering policy. Assessment of the program entailed a pre-, post-, and 1 year follow up survey to gauge student perspectives on relationships between science and society, as well as a pre–post concept map exercise to elicit student conceptualizations of science policy. Students leave Science Outside the Lab with greater humility about the role of scientific expertise in science and engineering policy; greater skepticism toward linear notions of scientific advances benefiting society; a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the actors involved in shaping science policy; and a continued appreciation of the contributions of science and engineering to society. The study presents an efficacious program that helps scientists and engineers make inroads into macroethical debates, reframe the ways in which they think about values of science and engineering in society, and more thoughtfully engage with critical mediators of science and society relationships: policy makers and policy processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Alternatively referred to as a “linear model” perspective.

  2. To say nothing of the obstacle of being an ethical engineer or scientist in a workplace where ethical practice may not be the norm (Herkert 2001).

  3. Wetmore served as program co-director in 2007 through 2010; Reifschneider served as program faculty in 2014 and in 2016; Bernstein served as a teaching assistant to the program in 2014 and as program faculty in 2016.

  4. Chatham House Rule. Chatham House: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Accessed on 18 February 2016. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule.

  5. One exception being Behnke (1961), who, as part of a study to compare scientists and science teacher’s views on the nature of science, explored views of relationships between society and science and scientists.

  6. The logic being that if science automatically leads to social benefits, then anything a scientist does in the name of science will undoubtedly and inevitably make the world a better place for everyone.

  7. Pielke (2007) described a similar contradiction in the way some scientists will assert that the value of their work rests in knowledge production for knowledge’s sake, yet lobby for funding because of the value of their work to policy.

  8. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, special tabulations (2014) of the 2013 Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016.

  9. Despite common English language proficiency entry requirements for U.S. graduate programs, not all students are fluent or conversational in English. This might make some students less likely to apply for or limit the benefits from attending an English language program.

References

  • ABET. (2016a). Criteria for accrediting applied science programs, 2016–2017. http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-applied-science-programs-2016-2017/. Accessed April 12, 2016.

  • ABET. (2016b). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2016–2017. http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/. Accessed April 12, 2016.

  • Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education, 30(1), 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, F. L. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61(3), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1953). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy’s view of history (2013th ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham: Rowman Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, J., Drake, M. J., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. L. (2010). The engineering and science issues test (ESIT): A discipline-specific approach to assessing moral judgment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, A., & Shumaker, S. A. (1984). Social support: An introduction to a complex phenomenon. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canary, H. E., Taylor, J. L., Herkert, J. R., Ellison, K., Wetmore, J. M., & Tarin, C. A. (2014). Engaging students in integrated ethics education: A communication in the disciplines study of pedagogy and students roles in society. Communication Education, 63, 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. (Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 07-017). Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

  • Cozzens, S. E., Bobb, K., Deas, K., Gatchair, S., George, A., & Ordonez, G. (2005). Distributional effects of science and technology-based economic development strategies at state level in the United States. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCoster, J. (2005). Scale construction notes. http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html. Accessed July 6, 2015.

  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R. W., Archambault, L. M., & Warren, A. E. (2015). Building sustainability literacy among preservice teachers: An initial evaluation of a sustainability course designed for K-8 educators. In S. Stratton, R. Hagevik, A. Feldman, & M. Bloom (Eds.), Educating science teachers for sustainability (pp. 49–67). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R. W., Bennett, I., & Wetmore, J. M. (2012). Practitioners’ views on responsibility: Applying nanoethics. NanoEthics, 6(3), 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2000). Retiring the social contract for science. Issues in Science and Technology, 16, 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2004). The emotional dog gets mistaken for a possum. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. R. (2001). Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the role of professional societies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herkert, J. R. (2005). Ways of thinking about and teaching ethical problem solving: Microethics and macroethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. L., Linsenmeier, J. A., Smith, H. D., & Walker, J. M. (2005). Enhancing core competency learning in an integrated summer research experience for bioengineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1994). Technological Momentum. In L. Marx & M. R. Smith (Eds.), Does technology drive history (Vol. does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism) (pp. 101–113). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasnaoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 13–45). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, M. W., Wilson, S. E., Dankowicz, H., & Loui, M. C. (2014). The importance of formative assessment in science and engineering ethics education: Some evidence and practical advice. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, J. (1980). The quest for a code of professional ethics: an intellectual and moral confusion. In R. Chalk, M. S. Frankel, & S. B. Chafer (Eds.), AAAS professional ethics project: Professional ethics activities in the scientific and engineering societies (pp. 154–159). Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2013). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry-the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincourt, J., & Johnson, R. (2004). Ethics training: A genuine dilemma for engineering educators. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 353–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham, K. M., Mintzes, J. J., & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, L. (1987). Does technology mean progress. Technology Review, 33–41.

  • McCormick, J. B., Boyce, A. M., Ladd, J. M., & Cho, M. K. (2012). Barriers to considering ethical and societal implications of research: Perceptions of life scientists. AJOB Primary Research, 3(3), 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metlay, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2012). Decision strategies for addressing complex, ‘messy’ problems. The Bridge on Social Sciences and Engineering. National Academy of Engineering, 42(Fall 2012), 6-16.

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Waples, E. P., Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 18(4), 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. A. (2004). Deliberative civic education and civil society: A consideration of ideals and actualities in democracy and communication education. Communication Education, 53(1).

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newberry, B. (2004). The dilemma of ethics in engineering education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(2), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2008) Grand challenges for engineering. National Academy of Sciences. http://engineeringchallenges.org/File.aspx?id=11574&v=ba24e2ed. Accessed May 19, 2015.

  • Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regis, A., Albertazzi, P. G., & Roletto, E. (1996). Concept maps in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 73(11), 1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (1998). DIT-2: Defining issues test. St. Paul, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, K., Strand, R., Fjelland, R., & Funtowicz, S. (2013). What can history teach us about the prospects of a European research area? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Report procured by the European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC84065/histera_final_report_25.pdf. Accessed November 24, 2015.

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotte, V., & Lonka, K. (1999). Spontaneous concept maps aiding the understanding of scientific concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 515–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, W. C. (2008). Philosophy of technology and macro-ethics in engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 405–415. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9066-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil, V. (2002). Making sense of scientists’ responsibilities at the interface of science and society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 223–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2001). Getting scientists to think about what they are doing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the university faculty, staff, guest speakers, and students who make Science Outside the Lab possible, in particular Andra Williams. We’d also like to thank the developers and faculty of the earliest Science Outside the Labs, Neal Woodbury, Dan Sarewitz, Joann Williams, Jim Allen, and Alex Smith. We thank Dr. Jessica Salerno for her insight as we refined our survey analysis. Our thanks also to the insightful comments of our three peer reviewers. Early versions of this research were presented at 2014 Gordon Research Conference, 2015 STGlobal Conference, and 2015 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This research was undertaken with support from The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), funded by the National Science Foundation (cooperative Agreement #0531194 and #0937591).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, 1120 S Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Michael J. Bernstein, Kiera Reifschneider, Ira Bennett & Jameson M. Wetmore

  2. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, 800 S Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

    Michael J. Bernstein

  3. Center for Engagement & Training in Science & Society, Arizona State University, 1120 S Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Ira Bennett & Jameson M. Wetmore

Authors
  1. Michael J. Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kiera Reifschneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ira Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jameson M. Wetmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Bernstein.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernstein, M.J., Reifschneider, K., Bennett, I. et al. Science Outside the Lab: Helping Graduate Students in Science and Engineering Understand the Complexities of Science Policy. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 861–882 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9818-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9818-6

Keywords

  • Science policy
  • Ethics education
  • Macroethics
  • Science and engineering education
  • Science
  • Policy
  • Evaluation
  • Assessment
  • Experiential learning