Abstract
From a consideration of the nature of scientific understanding and the control of nature Lacey proposes a set of criteria by which the reform of science teaching might be guided. He uses the term ‘critical self-consciousness’ to describe the development of learner's appreciation of the character of scientific activity, its applications, and the choices citizens face in society. By this latter he means ‘responsible’ participation, presumably in the debates surrounding the character of scientific activity, its applications, and the choices inherent in these. In this paper I show that Lacey's vision of the schooling of science through the development of ‘critical self-consciousness’ has been articulated by others at different epochs, and probably from different ideological perspectives. Knowledge of these will help Lacey in his search for an education in science which promotes citizens' participation rather than alienating them from decision-making in society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science: 1989, Science for all Americans: Project 2061, AAAS, Washington, D.C.
Armstrong, H.E.: 1903, The Teaching of Scientific Method and other Papers on Education, Macmillan, New York.
Bernal, J.D.: 1938, Supplement to Nature, 141, 3573, 736.
Bernal, J.D.: 1939, The Social Function of Science, Macmillan, New York.
Bernal, J.D.: 1949, The Freedom of Necessity, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Bernal, J.D.: 1949b, ‘The Situation in Biological Science in 1949’, The Modern Quarterly 4, 203-217.
Brown, J., Cooper, A, Horton, T, Toates, F, & Zeldin, D.: 1986, Science in Schools, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Chomsky, N.: 1981, Radical Priorities: Edited with Introduction by Carlos P. Otero, Black Rose Books, Montréal.
Chomsky, N.: 1989, Necessary Illusions, South End Press, Boston, MA.
Cross, R.T.: 1995, ‘Conceptions of Scientific Literacy: Reactionaries in Ascendency in the State of Victoria’, Res. in Sci. Education 25(2), 151-162.
Cross, R.T.: 1997(a), ‘The Schooling of Science as a Deterrent to Democracy in Australia: The Example of Benzene’, Int. J. of Sci. Education 19(4), 469-479.
Cross, R.T.: 1997(b), ‘Ideology and Science Teaching: Teachers' Discourse’, Int. J. of Sci. Education, 19(5), 607-616.
Cross, R.T. & Price, R.F. 1992, Teaching Science for Social Responsibility, St. Louis Press, Sydney.
Duster, T.: 1990, Backdoor to Eugenics, Routledge, New York.
Goldsmith, M.: 1980, Sage. A Life of J.D. Bernal, Hutchinson, London.
Goldsmith, M.: 1995, Joseph Needham: 20th Century Renaissance Man, UNESCO, Paris.
Goldsmith, M. & Mackay, A. (eds.): 1964, The Science of Science, Pelican, Harmodsworth.
Griffen, D.R. (ed.): 1988, The Reenchantment of Science, State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.
Jenkins, E.W.: 1994, ‘Public Understanding of Science and Science Education for Action’, J. Curric. Studies 26(6), 601-611.
Jenkins, E.W.: 1996, The ‘Nature of Science as a Curriculum Component’, J. Curric. Studies 28(2), 137-150.
Kevles, D.J.: 1985, In the Name of Eugenics, Alfred. A. Knopf, New York.
Lacey, H.: 1996, ‘Scientific Understanding and the Control of Nature’, the Dyason Lecture presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, June 27. Also Science & Education, this issue, pp. 13–35.
Lakatos, I.: 1978, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Layton, D, Jenkins, E, Macgill, S. & Davey, A.: 1993, Inarticulate Science? Perspectives on the Public Understanding of Science and Some Implications for Science Education, Studies in Science Education, Driffied, UK.
Levins, R. 1986, ‘Science and Progress: Seven Developmental Myths in Agriculture’, Monthly Rev. 38(3), 13-20.
Matthews, M.R.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York.
Maxwell, N.: 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Merchant, C.: 1980, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, Harper & Row, San Francisco.
National Research Council.: 1996, National Science Standards, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Needham, J.: 1985, ‘Science and Politics’, in V. and B. Karps, (eds.) Louis Rapkin, Orpheus Press, Vermont.
Ramsey, J.: 1993, ‘The Science Education Reform Movement: Implications for Social Rresponsibility’, Sci. Educ. 77(2), 235-258.
Ravetz, J.R.: 1971, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Oxford University Press, New York.
Rose, H. & Rose, S. (eds.): 1976, The Radicalisation of Science, Macmillan, London.
Werskey, P.G. 1972, ‘British Scientists and “Outsider” Politics 1931–1945’, in B. Barnes (ed.), Sociology of Science, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Yager, R. E. (ed.): 1996, Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, Albany, N.Y. State University of New York Press.
Ziman, J. 1968, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ziman, J.: 1980, Teaching and Learning About Science and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cross, R.T. Scientific Understanding: Lacey's ‘Critical Self-Consciousness’ Seen as Echoes of J.D. Bernal. Science & Education 8, 67–78 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008656332354
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008656332354